Waiting, once again.

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 12:22:37 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 08:17:21 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 5:19:33 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:36:58 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 04:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

Waiting to see what path Dorian will take.

Waiting for the county to decide if we have to evacuate, or if we are to shelter in place.

Waiting for yet another extended Power failure.

It figures that I will have a doctor's appointment during the upcoming mess.


It might not make land in Florida.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDTWKADU4AIE38E?format=jpg&name=small


It's fun to watch the computer track projections. They are all new
every day.

(I'll regrain from commenting on computer climate projections.)

When I was a teenager, Betsy was scooting West towards Texas, and a
famous pompous NOLA weatherman assured us it would miss us. Then it
did a 90 degree turn to the north, and the eye passed over us late in
the night.

It's not going to make landfall there. But it is threatening a huge swath of coastline from north Florida all the way to North Carolina. The coastal wetlands there are really low elevation and serve as habitat for millions of birds and other wildlife, with more than a few species already critically endangered. So it's looking like it will be another environmental disaster.

But no different from what's been going on for thousands of years.

John Larkin hasn't got the message that the one degree Celcius of global warming that we've already puts 6% more water vapour into the atmosphere above the oceans, which is the energy store that drives hurricanes and other extreme weather.

That's not been true for the past few thousand years.

Since hurricanes depend on the existence of a large area of ocean that is warmer than 26C down to depth of about 50 metres, global warming opens out the area that can spawn them.

The modelling that has been done suggests that the extra area is going to translate into more intense hurricanes rather than more frequent hurricanes, which is going to make the consequences more severe than they have been for the past few thousand years.

John Larkin gets his information from Anthony Watts' denialist website, which isn't a particularly reliable source, even if it offers enough flattery to it's readers to keep John Larkin happy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Right, and all that water vapor makes the storm double damaging because of of it. Supposedly when the vapor precipitates out of the circulation, the rotation is damped due to some kind of conservation of momentum, which in practical terms means the storm tends linger over the area much longer. This is how they ended with 50 inches rainfall in Houston. The flooding was horrendous.

Many of the flooded houses in Houston were built in what was a
reservoir.

The area was originally some kind of drainage basin for positively huge watershed. Not good for building residential, but excellent for construction of a shipping port, which was its original purpose, it was totally industrial. Not exactly sure of the time frame, but the booming expansion of the city infrastructure and the population boom was relatively recent, like past 40 years or something. They did have a system of buffer retention reservoirs, to hold excess water in the event of storms or floods, and buy time for natural drainage to remove the water and prevent flooding. But the system was corrupted by the greed of the real estate developers with lots of housing constructed in high risk areas and fudged estimates of their flood abatement efficacy. End result was of course gazillions of bucks of damage and looking for a federal taxpayer bailout to fix it.

New Orleans is mostly below sea level. A hundred years of building
levees and pumping out groundwater and building ranch-style houses has
side effects. Hurricanes have been around forever.

Right, NOLA is pretty safe if the dykes are properly maintained. They'll probably need to be enlarged to account for sea level rise eventually.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[bitrex]

On 9/1/19 1:47 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The area was originally some kind of drainage basin for positively huge watershed. Not good for building residential, but excellent for construction of a shipping port, which was its original purpose, it was totally industrial. Not exactly sure of the time frame, but the booming expansion of the city infrastructure and the population boom was relatively recent, like past 40 years or something. They did have a system of buffer retention reservoirs, to hold excess water in the event of storms or floods, and buy time for natural drainage to remove the water and prevent flooding. But the system was corrupted by the greed of the real estate developers with lots of housing constructed in high risk areas and fudged estimates of their flood abatement efficacy. End result was of course gazillions of bucks of damage and looking for a federal taxpayer bailout to fix it.


New Orleans is mostly below sea level. A hundred years of building
levees and pumping out groundwater and building ranch-style houses has
side effects. Hurricanes have been around forever.

Right, NOLA is pretty safe if the dykes are properly maintained. They'll probably need to be enlarged to account for sea level rise eventually.

Ben Shapiro: "If sea level rises even say ten feet would people not
just, sell their homes and move inland?"

TO FUCKING AQUAMAN?

<https://youtu.be/RLqXkYrdmjY?t=198>

Gotta be a real stable genius to work as an editor at Breitbart for four
years.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/08/31 8:17 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 5:45:10 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Whoey Louie wrote...

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Whoey Louie wrote...

On August 31, 2019, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

So it's looking like it will be another environmental disaster.

ROFL

Now even a routine hurricane is supposed to be an environmental
disaster. Hurricanes are part of the environment.

Yes, Mother Nature can beat up on itself, but hey, that's
still an environmental disaster!! Anyway, categories 4
and 5 didn't used to be routine.

That's obvious BS.

The links you put up support my statement.


--
Thanks,
- Win

Perhaps you missed this part:

"It is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency is primarily due to improved monitoring."

And you missed this part "There has been a very pronounced increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic since the late-1980s."

Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson seem to have missed the point that anthropogenic global warming has been accelerating over the past forty years.

By 1980 had been about half a degree of anthropogenic global warming above the normal interglacial average temperature - comparable with the statistical noise on the signal from the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower atlantic Multidecadal oscillation. Since then we've had another half degree of anthropogenic global warming.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

Being obsessed with historical records can blind you to what's actually going on now.

Bill, did you even READ the article?

------------(quote)-------------
We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing
storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical
storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this
trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is
not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the
historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling
evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
...
If we instead consider Atlantic basin hurricanes, rather than all
Atlantic tropical storms, the result is similar: the reported numbers of
hurricanes were sufficiently high during the 1860s-1880s that again
there is no significant positive trend in numbers beginning from that
era (Figure 4, black curve, from CCSP 3.3 (2008)). This is without any
adjustment for “missing hurricanes”.

-----------(end quote)------------------

In other words sufficient historical data shows that the conditions
haven't changed enough in the long term. If you shrink the results to a
few decades or back to say the 1950s then sure, you get an apparent
increase, but if you go back to the 1800s then that difference disappears.

John

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/08/31 12:06 p.m., Winfield Hill wrote:

Whoey Louie wrote...

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Whoey Louie wrote...

On August 31, 2019, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

So it's looking like it will be another environmental disaster.

ROFL

Now even a routine hurricane is supposed to be an environmental
disaster. Hurricanes are part of the environment.

Yes, Mother Nature can beat up on itself, but hey, that's
still an environmental disaster!! Anyway, categories 4
and 5 didn't used to be routine.

That's obvious BS.

The links you put up support my statement.

I don't consider Wikipedia to be a primary source, however the NOAA
keeps a list of land-fall hurricanes and it paints a slightly different
picture:

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html

Read the bottom comments as well. The information is only as valid once
someone was there to record it so they have scant records prior to 1851...

Always go to the source!

John :-#)#

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Whoey Louie wrote...

"It is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm
and hurricane frequency is primarily due to improved monitoring."

Excuse me, we now realize that a cat 4 or 5 storm
has hit,

Start with the fact that many hurricanes don't hit anything, others
don't hit much of anything. Did we have aircraft flying into
hurricanes to measure wind speed and pressure in 1900? Did we have
accurate instrumentation on some barely inhabited island to
accurately measure wind speeds at to determine if they were 130
or 150? Did we know that the hurricane that came ashore in FL
in 1900 wasn't a cat 4 or 5 two days earlier? It could very well
be recorded as only a cat 3, when today it would be recorded more
accurately as a cat 4 or 5 where we're constantly tracking it.







only because we have better monitoring?

The lower-frequency of recorded storms in the past
is because they didn't notice the 140mph winds?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:08:33 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/1/19 1:47 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The area was originally some kind of drainage basin for positively huge watershed. Not good for building residential, but excellent for construction of a shipping port, which was its original purpose, it was totally industrial. Not exactly sure of the time frame, but the booming expansion of the city infrastructure and the population boom was relatively recent, like past 40 years or something. They did have a system of buffer retention reservoirs, to hold excess water in the event of storms or floods, and buy time for natural drainage to remove the water and prevent flooding. But the system was corrupted by the greed of the real estate developers with lots of housing constructed in high risk areas and fudged estimates of their flood abatement efficacy. End result was of course gazillions of bucks of damage and looking for a federal taxpayer bailout to fix it.


New Orleans is mostly below sea level. A hundred years of building
levees and pumping out groundwater and building ranch-style houses has
side effects. Hurricanes have been around forever.

Right, NOLA is pretty safe if the dykes are properly maintained. They'll probably need to be enlarged to account for sea level rise eventually.


Ben Shapiro: "If sea level rises even say ten feet would people not
just, sell their homes and move inland?"

TO FUCKING AQUAMAN?

https://youtu.be/RLqXkYrdmjY?t=198

Gotta be a real stable genius to work as an editor at Breitbart for four
years.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/life/home-garden/obamas-buying-marthas-vineyard-estate/287-6cfe72ff-320a-4944-a2e9-6328706b870a

The front door is something like 8 feet above sea level.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 16:44:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/life/home-garden/obamas-buying-marthas-
vineyard-estate/287-6cfe72ff-320a-4944-a2e9-6328706b870a

The front door is something like 8 feet above sea level.

Well, Obama as an insider clearly knows the score: sea levels are *not*
rising.
Wake up, bitchez.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 11:54:09 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 11:17:53 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 5:45:10 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:07:01 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Whoey Louie wrote...

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Whoey Louie wrote...

On August 31, 2019, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

So it's looking like it will be another environmental disaster..

ROFL

Now even a routine hurricane is supposed to be an environmental
disaster. Hurricanes are part of the environment.

Yes, Mother Nature can beat up on itself, but hey, that's
still an environmental disaster!! Anyway, categories 4
and 5 didn't used to be routine.

That's obvious BS.

The links you put up support my statement.


--
Thanks,
- Win

Perhaps you missed this part:

"It is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency is primarily due to improved monitoring."

And you missed this part "There has been a very pronounced increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic since the late-1980s."

Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson seem to have missed the point that anthropogenic global warming has been accelerating over the past forty years.

By 1980 had been about half a degree of anthropogenic global warming above the normal interglacial average temperature - comparable with the statistical noise on the signal from the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower atlantic Multidecadal oscillation. Since then we've had another half degree of anthropogenic global warming.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

Being obsessed with historical records can blind you to what's actually going on now.

Yes, screw the historical records, let's just make it up as we go.

ROFL

That's not the point. The history they are concentrating on is the period when anthropogenic global warming was just getting under way. Half the warming we are seeing now has happened since 1980.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 12:31:44 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:24:27 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

My older daughter, thednageek, is a PhD biologist, and she has
discovered scores of new insect species, but she can't define "species."

Funny I don't remember you ever mentioning you having such a child
prodigy before, John. Unlike dearly-departed Jim, who practically force-
fed us at every opportunity how great his offspring were (God bless him).

Curistor Doom hasn't been paying attention. John Larkin's daughter has been mentioned here from time to time. Motorcycles have also been known to come into it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 12:24:37 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 04:06:10 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 9/1/19 12:14 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:36:58 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 04:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

Waiting to see what path Dorian will take.

Waiting for the county to decide if we have to evacuate, or if we are to shelter in place.

Waiting for yet another extended Power failure.

It figures that I will have a doctor's appointment during the upcoming mess.


It might not make land in Florida.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDTWKADU4AIE38E?format=jpg&name=small


It's fun to watch the computer track projections. They are all new
every day.

(I'll regrain from commenting on computer climate projections.)

When I was a teenager, Betsy was scooting West towards Texas, and a
famous pompous NOLA weatherman assured us it would miss us. Then it
did a 90 degree turn to the north, and the eye passed over us late in
the night.

It's not going to make landfall there. But it is threatening a huge swath of coastline from north Florida all the way to North Carolina. The coastal wetlands there are really low elevation and serve as habitat for millions of birds and other wildlife, with more than a few species already critically endangered. So it's looking like it will be another environmental disaster.

One problem is that there is no longer a firm definition of "species."
Nowadays, one batch of squirrels with a stripe on their tails is
declared to be a new species. There are many more species than there
were by the classic definition.

(Except humans of course. We can't have species.)


From 10th grade biology, the classical definition is that a male and
female are of the same species if they can have fertile offspring. So
dogs and wolves are the same species, but horses and donkeys aren't.

That was the classic definition. No longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

My older daughter, the dna geek, is a PhD biologist, and she has
discovered scores of new insect species, but she can't define
"species."

Any biologist knows what a species is, but none of them have worked out how to formalise that definition yet.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19722848.html

It's rather like Godel's Theorems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

You can set up any number of nice rigid system of rules, but reality doesn't seem to feel obliged to conform to them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 12:19:02 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 06:54:04 -0700, Whoey Louie wrote:

Yes, screw the historical records, let's just make it up as we go.

Old Bill's an expert in that technique.

Cursitor Doom isn't a stupid as Trader4 - who is - but he's quite as dedicated to believing his own brands of nonsense, and just as willing to believe that somebody who has better grasp of history than he has is just "making stuff up".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 12:00:11 PM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/08/31 8:17 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 5:45:10 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

....did you even READ the article?

------------(quote)-------------
We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing
storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical
storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this
trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is
not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).

In other words sufficient historical data shows that the conditions
haven't changed enough in the long term.

Not at all. It says historical data doesn't sufficiently show
a change, which is quite a different meaning.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/09/01 8:53 p.m., whit3rd wrote:

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 12:00:11 PM UTC-7, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/08/31 8:17 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 5:45:10 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

....did you even READ the article?

------------(quote)-------------
We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing
storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical
storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this
trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is
not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2).


In other words sufficient historical data shows that the conditions
haven't changed enough in the long term.

Not at all. It says historical data doesn't sufficiently show
a change, which is quite a different meaning.

Perhaps I was unclear in my comment, what I meant to say was historical
data doesn't show a difference when considered over the long term. You
have to be willing to show empirical data over longer time frames to
show or not that ones hypothesis that a warming wold has led to
increased hurricane land falls.

Mind you I have had a wee bit of wine tonight (two glasses of a rather
nice red while watching a couple of episodes of "The Scottish Detective"
with my wife. Specifically "Hamish Mac....". According to our old
Shakespearean (actor) family friends, one must not say the name of the
Scottish Play, so I have expanded upon that to include the Scottish
Detective...) so perhaps not am as clear as I would hope to be.

My point being that when you take a small sample size you can suggest
results that cease to exist when you include the larger sample size. In
this case the sample size is measured in years.

John

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/09/01 8:14 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 12:31:44 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:24:27 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

My older daughter, thednageek, is a PhD biologist, and she has
discovered scores of new insect species, but she can't define "species."

Funny I don't remember you ever mentioning you having such a child
prodigy before, John. Unlike dearly-departed Jim, who practically force-
fed us at every opportunity how great his offspring were (God bless him).

Curistor Doom hasn't been paying attention. John Larkin's daughter has been mentioned here from time to time. Motorcycles have also been known to come into it.

Nothing wrong with motorcycles (with proper training - much like pilots)
or being proud of your offspring!

Bragging about your children is not so good though...you tend to get
ignored.

John

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/09/01 10:07 p.m., bitrex wrote:

On 9/1/19 8:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 16:44:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/life/home-garden/obamas-buying-marthas-
vineyard-estate/287-6cfe72ff-320a-4944-a2e9-6328706b870a

The front door is something like 8 feet above sea level.

Well, Obama as an insider clearly knows the score: sea levels are *not*
rising.
Wake up, bitchez.




Sometimes I get the impression "Cursitor Doom" is a vehicle for some
kind of long-term multi-user performance-art project.

I prefer my Russian troll hypothesis... someone would have to be paying
him to be so consistently annoying.

John ;-#)#

 

[bitrex]

On 9/1/19 8:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 16:44:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/life/home-garden/obamas-buying-marthas-
vineyard-estate/287-6cfe72ff-320a-4944-a2e9-6328706b870a

The front door is something like 8 feet above sea level.

Well, Obama as an insider clearly knows the score: sea levels are *not*
rising.
Wake up, bitchez.

Sometimes I get the impression "Cursitor Doom" is a vehicle for some
kind of long-term multi-user performance-art project.

 

[bitrex]

On 9/1/19 7:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 15:08:33 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/1/19 1:47 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

The area was originally some kind of drainage basin for positively huge watershed. Not good for building residential, but excellent for construction of a shipping port, which was its original purpose, it was totally industrial. Not exactly sure of the time frame, but the booming expansion of the city infrastructure and the population boom was relatively recent, like past 40 years or something. They did have a system of buffer retention reservoirs, to hold excess water in the event of storms or floods, and buy time for natural drainage to remove the water and prevent flooding. But the system was corrupted by the greed of the real estate developers with lots of housing constructed in high risk areas and fudged estimates of their flood abatement efficacy. End result was of course gazillions of bucks of damage and looking for a federal taxpayer bailout to fix it.


New Orleans is mostly below sea level. A hundred years of building
levees and pumping out groundwater and building ranch-style houses has
side effects. Hurricanes have been around forever.

Right, NOLA is pretty safe if the dykes are properly maintained. They'll probably need to be enlarged to account for sea level rise eventually.


Ben Shapiro: "If sea level rises even say ten feet would people not
just, sell their homes and move inland?"

TO FUCKING AQUAMAN?

https://youtu.be/RLqXkYrdmjY?t=198

Gotta be a real stable genius to work as an editor at Breitbart for four
years.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/life/home-garden/obamas-buying-marthas-vineyard-estate/287-6cfe72ff-320a-4944-a2e9-6328706b870a

The front door is something like 8 feet above sea level.

if that home were to get washed away tomorrow do you think Obama would
be able to afford another home

or would he be homeless, now.

???

 

[bitrex]

On 9/1/19 11:10 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

From 10th grade biology, the classical definition is that a male and
female are of the same species if they can have fertile offspring. So
dogs and wolves are the same species, but horses and donkeys aren't.

That was the classic definition. No longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

My older daughter, the dna geek, is a PhD biologist, and she has
discovered scores of new insect species, but she can't define
"species."

Any biologist knows what a species is, but none of them have worked out how to formalise that definition yet.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19722848.html

It's rather like Godel's Theorems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

You can set up any number of nice rigid system of rules, but reality doesn't seem to feel obliged to conform to them.

It's a lot easier to say what something isn't than what something "is"

 

On Sunday, 1 September 2019 16:58:08 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:50:11 -0700, Michael Terrell wrote:

He also suffers from delusions that he's adequate.

Well, for those who are studying Marxist dogma, Bill's the very chap!
There's nothing about Marx's clapped out, discredited theories he doesn't
know. It's only everything else he stinks at.

The one thing he's good at is trolling, presenting argments that sound credible if you don't think much about them.
And I think he did a bit of electronics once.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 6:18:51 PM UTC+10, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 1 September 2019 16:58:08 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:50:11 -0700, Michael Terrell wrote:

He also suffers from delusions that he's adequate.

Well, for those who are studying Marxist dogma, Bill's the very chap!
There's nothing about Marx's clapped out, discredited theories he doesn't
know. It's only everything else he stinks at.

The one thing he's good at is trolling, presenting arguments that sound credible if you don't think much about them.

NT is an expert at not thinking very much about the arguments he presents.

He feels hurt when anyone points out that he's peddling nonsense, but he's too dim and too vain to be willing or able to recognise that they are right.

> And I think he did a bit of electronics once.

NT's grasp of electronics is as weak as his grasp of the rest of reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney