au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/14438455/leaked-polling-shows-labor-annihilation/

EXCLUSIVE: Julia Gillard's leadership has been rocked by her party's own polling, which reveals Labor would be wiped out in half the states and territories at a federal election.

The internal Labor polling, leaked to Seven News shows Labor would be left with no seats in Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania or Western Australia.

The secret Government polling shows Labor's two-party preferred vote in Queensland has collapsed from 45 percent at the 2010 election, to just 36.

While in Tasmania, home to the bellwether seats of Bass and Braddon, it's plummeted 17 points to 44.

The results are even worse than previous polls and make confronting reading for the senior ministers, federal executive members and state secretaries on its distribution list.

These people will ultimately make the final call on Julia Gillard's leadership, and sources now say that decision might come in September.
There are three newspaper polls between now and then, and if they don't change the leadership might.

I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession.

Its not the leadership its the policies, no it is the leadership not the policies, no its both.

I hope they keep Gillard caus eshe is going to get slammed election time. Good ridence to bad rubbish if you ask me.

Labor must really be regretting their decision to agree to the Green's carbon tax now.

They thought that people would just forget about the lie, but public anger is still just as strong now, in fact, maybe even stronger, than it was when Julia broke her promise 17 months ago.

Not a single seat in any of Tas, Qld, WA and the NT - wow.

I don't know whether I see this as a good or bad thing. I do want Labor ut as much as anyone, but it wouldn't be too good having a virtual one-party state, as NSW and Qld presently do.

I thought labor were a bit slow, but this slow is just disturbing. You mean to say they are only just catching up on what people have known 2 month out from the last election.

I'm just PAST CARING about the concrete boot wearing Australian electorate

I'm HAPPY, that the Australian Federal Government is ceasing the welfare subsidy to Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, for private health insurance ( ... and ALL the members of their respective golf clubs) out of the limited HEALTH BUDGET

I'm glad 2, that this government has not "buckled" in its resolve and idealism ( ... and what is TRUE and RIGHT) over opinion polls

adelcrow wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 6:24pm:

I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession.

they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT..

your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn..


I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that..


it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance.


I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH.

john_g wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 7:32pm:

Labor must really be regretting their decision to agree to the Green's carbon tax now. They thought that people would just forget about the lie, but public anger is still just as strong now, in fact, maybe even stronger, than it was when Julia broke her promise 17 months ago. Not a single seat in any of Tas, Qld, WA and the NT - wow. I don't know whether I see this as a good or bad thing. I do want Labor ut as much as anyone, but it wouldn't be too good having a virtual one-party state, as NSW and Qld presently do.

it isnt so much the LIE about not having a TAX john.g.

its tha fact that people well some are waking up to the fact that it wont make one iota of difference to climate change.. and the fact that the rest of the world have turned off the whole idea...


islands havent sunk overnight.. our water systems havent dried up overnight like we have had drummed into us.

the world in general is cleaning itself up just through sheer economics.. and the brilliance of those that invent I think its called evolution..we find cleaner better hopefully cheaper ways of doing things.

we dont need to give govt more bloody TAX to throw away on uninvited boat people..or pay other nations to stop boat people when in fact they have no intentions of stopping boat people at all.. and never have done.

the people smuggling industry has got to be the fastest growing business this country has even had a finger in.


I agree about the one party State.. we have seen the results of a hung govt.. not good

TO MUCH POWER...dont believe in it..

john_g wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 7:32pm:

Labor must really be regretting their decision to agree to the Green's carbon tax now. They thought that people would just forget about the lie, but public anger is still just as strong now, in fact, maybe even stronger, than it was when Julia broke her promise 17 months ago. Not a single seat in any of Tas, Qld, WA and the NT - wow. I don't know whether I see this as a good or bad thing. I do want Labor ut as much as anyone, but it wouldn't be too good having a virtual one-party state, as NSW and Qld presently do.

It was going to happen. If it wasnt her then someone else would have done it. Its just another tax and whoever was in power would have renamed it and brought it in. We are still going to cop a big whack when the GST is put up too.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 4:48am:

john_g wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: Labor must really be regretting their decision to agree to the Green's carbon tax now. They thought that people would just forget about the lie, but public anger is still just as strong now, in fact, maybe even stronger, than it was when Julia broke her promise 17 months ago. Not a single seat in any of Tas, Qld, WA and the NT - wow. I don't know whether I see this as a good or bad thing. I do want Labor ut as much as anyone, but it wouldn't be too good having a virtual one-party state, as NSW and Qld presently do. It was going to happen. If it wasnt her then someone else would have done it. Its just another tax and whoever was in power would have renamed it and brought it in. We are still going to cop a big whack when the GST is put up too. SOB

I trust if you really   think like that... that whoever did decide to put it on was a little more honest about it.


the way this whole thing has been handled has put a lot of backs up.. we are not kids and we get sick of being taken for granted

and being lied to is not one of my favourite ways of getting the best out of me..

LOL - more chubbie raisers for the Tards.  Now preface all that posting with the words:  "If an election were held today -

Sad sad people you righties!

Labor is like the Titanic - it doesn't matter who's at the helm, the ship is going DOWN!

cods wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 4:43am:

[quote author=4C494E487941260 link=1343895492/3#3 date=1343899951]Labor must really be regretting their decision to agree to the Green's carbon tax now. They thought that people would just forget about the lie, but public anger is still just as strong now, in fact, maybe even stronger, than it was when Julia broke her promise 17 months ago. Not a single seat in any of Tas, Qld, WA and the NT - wow. I don't know whether I see this as a good or bad thing. I do want Labor ut as much as anyone, but it wouldn't be too good having a virtual one-party state, as NSW and Qld presently do.

.



it isnt so much the LIE about not having a TAX john.g.

its tha fact that people well some are waking up to the fact that it wont make one iota of difference to climate change.. and the fact that the rest of the world have turned off the whole idea...


.

quote]
This is where you and a lot of climate confusionalists and Abbott huggers have it wrong,cods. The tax intentions are not to make a direct impact on climate change, besides being impossible ,to think that is naive beyond imagination. The intention of the tax is to make the big polluters that pay it change to cleaner greener energy options, it is using the big stick approach to dirty polluters, it is very simple , I,m not sure if you are genuine,and don't know, or if you are peddling a lie on purpose with your line this tax will not make a difference, no matter ,it's wrong

Quote:

islands havent sunk overnight

Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::)

Maqqa wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 6:18pm:

au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/14438455/leaked-polling-shows-labor-annihilation/ EXCLUSIVE: Julia Gillard's leadership has been rocked by her party's own polling, which reveals Labor would be wiped out in half the states and territories at a federal election. The internal Labor polling, leaked to Seven News shows Labor would be left with no seats in Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania or Western Australia. The secret Government polling shows Labor's two-party preferred vote in Queensland has collapsed from 45 percent at the 2010 election, to just 36. While in Tasmania, home to the bellwether seats of Bass and Braddon, it's plummeted 17 points to 44. The results are even worse than previous polls and make confronting reading for the senior ministers, federal executive members and state secretaries on its distribution list. These people will ultimately make the final call on Julia Gillard's leadership, and sources now say that decision might come in September. There are three newspaper polls between now and then, and if they don't change the leadership might.

Well, they cant be totally surprised at that.

skippy. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:05am:

Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::)

If they are "sinking" that would be caused by local geology, if they are being eroded by the ocean then that is a continuation of that that has been continuing for millennia, I'm not disagreeing with the concept of rising sea levels as I am not qualified to do so, however to put the blame entirely on those levels is flawed. Coastlines around every continent were and are continually changing due to tidal erosion and to a lesser extent rising sea levels.

Guildford wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:56am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) If they are "sinking" that would be caused by local geology, if they are being eroded by the ocean then that is a continuation of that that has been continuing for millennia, I'm not disagreeing with the concept of rising sea levels as I am not qualified to do so, however to put the blame entirely on those levels is flawed. Coastlines around every continent were and are continually changing due to tidal erosion and to a lesser extent rising sea levels.

ABSOLUTELY 100 % CORRECT GUILDFORD.

the sinking islands in the maldives are due to deep subsidence and nothing to do with rising ocean levels.
i think the latest data is that ocean levels have risen about 4 cm in the last 50 years. that would not put any island under.  really, you cant have rising ocean levels in one ocean and not in another.  that would be a very strange stretch of newtons laws of physics.

cods wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 4:34am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH.

I can't believe you wrote this Cods,
OK now's your chance to tell us all  why you think this way.
But I,m betting you can't or won't, lets face it you are a rusted on there's no other reason anybody would believe this rubbish.

Rudd and Gillard tried to give us a recession,that's pathetic.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 10:17am:

Guildford wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:56am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) If they are "sinking" that would be caused by local geology, if they are being eroded by the ocean then that is a continuation of that that has been continuing for millennia, I'm not disagreeing with the concept of rising sea levels as I am not qualified to do so, however to put the blame entirely on those levels is flawed. Coastlines around every continent were and are continually changing due to tidal erosion and to a lesser extent rising sea levels. ABSOLUTELY 100 % CORRECT GUILDFORD. the sinking islands in the maldives are due to deep subsidence and nothing to do with rising ocean levels. i think the latest data is that ocean levels have risen about 4 cm in the last 50 years. that would not put any island under.  really, you cant have rising ocean levels in one ocean and not in another.  that would be a very strange stretch of newtons laws of physics.

Umm... without disagreeing about your statement about the Maldives (I've no idea on that), the bit about ocean levels and Newton's laws needs some expansion. Levels are at all times different between different oceans. This is a phenomenon we know as "tides".

Moreover I believe there is an ongoing difference in the mean sea level between (for instance) the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, something that had to be allowed for when building the Panama Canal. Not much - about 20cm - but it does exist.

skippy. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:05am:

Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::)

The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising.

cods wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 4:34am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH.

I basically agree cods, but you can't underestimate the impact of the lie itself. Most people I've spoken to are just as angry, some even more so, about the lie itself, as they are about the tax in general.

Gillard just cannot be trusted. Whether or not you believe that climate change us real is not the point here.people are just fed up wither perpetual lying. Of course many of her failed policies, like border patrol and the carbon tax themselves are to blame for Labor's dire polling.

It's not that they've failed to gain votes from the swingers like me, but they've even lost a fair amount of their hardcore base.

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:41am:

cods wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 4:34am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH. I basically agree cods, but you can't underestimate the impact of the lie itself. Most people I've spoken to are just as angry, some even more so, about the lie itself, as they are about the tax in general. Gillard just cannot be trusted. Whether or not you believe that climate change us real is not the point here.people are just fed up wither perpetual lying. Of course many of her failed policies, like border patrol and the carbon tax themselves are to blame for Labor's dire polling. It's not that they've failed to gain votes from the swingers like me, but they've even lost a fair amount of their hardcore base.

So how is NZ?

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:41am:

cods wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 4:34am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH. I basically agree cods, but you can't underestimate the impact of the lie itself. Most people I've spoken to are just as angry, some even more so, about the lie itself, as they are about the tax in general. Gillard just cannot be trusted. Whether or not you believe that climate change us real is not the point here.people are just fed up wither perpetual lying. Of course many of her failed policies, like border patrol and the carbon tax themselves are to blame for Labor's dire polling. It's not that they've failed to gain votes from the swingers like me, but they've even lost a fair amount of their hardcore base.

you're really that angry about a politician lieing? why? where did you grow up in a tent in the middle of the great sandy desert? politicians have been lieing to their constituents for centuries ..every single PM or world leader has lied about something or other  (by the way, its not a lie, its a broken promise, but thats another issue)  ... at least Gillard had a sound reason for changing her mind ...

John Smith wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:49am:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:41am: cods wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 4:34am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH. I basically agree cods, but you can't underestimate the impact of the lie itself. Most people I've spoken to are just as angry, some even more so, about the lie itself, as they are about the tax in general. Gillard just cannot be trusted. Whether or not you believe that climate change us real is not the point here.people are just fed up wither perpetual lying. Of course many of her failed policies, like border patrol and the carbon tax themselves are to blame for Labor's dire polling. It's not that they've failed to gain votes from the swingers like me, but they've even lost a fair amount of their hardcore base. you're really that angry about a politician lieing? why? where did you grow up in a tent in the middle of the great sandy desert? politicians have been lieing to their constituents for centuries ..every single PM or world leader has lied about something or other  (by the way, its not a lie, its a broken promise, but thats another issue)  ... at least Gillard had a sound reason for changing her mind ...

Yes, it was a lie.

So, do you follow the logic of "two wrongs make a right"? Just because others may do it, it doesn't make it right, and no other PM to my memory has made a lie of such a magnitude.

Sound reason for changing her mind? You mean self-interest and power at any cost?

Gist wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:48am:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:41am: cods wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 4:34am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 2nd, 2012 at 6:24pm: I hope your going to enjoy Abbotts gift to the nation..a long long long recession. they will inherit a mess and well you know it if all this is true and it does happen.. in my mind it will be JOB loses..everywhere we go jobs are going..this govt had ploughed millions into the car industry  and for what good.. seems like they did no forward thinking.as far as just last Jan they ploughed more in..telling us they were saving jobs.. what a lie a devastating lie to all those with the axe hanging over their heads and not much more for those that are still there  they would all be thinking.. HOW LONG HAVE WE GOT.. your job may well be safe I dont know where you work.. but believe me its cruel what is happening in a country that we keep getting told is fantastic ahs the world best economy...over and over... yeah tell that to the families that have nowhere to turn.. I do not say Abbott will turn all that around  but by golly the Libs didnt start this avalanche and its time some of you lefties began to admit that.. it wont be Abbotts gift it will be the remnants from the Labor Green alliance. I dont recall the word RECESSION being used once when Howard was in.. then rudd and gillard did their level best to start one.. and well as you can see they achieved it..THANKS VERY MUCH. I basically agree cods, but you can't underestimate the impact of the lie itself. Most people I've spoken to are just as angry, some even more so, about the lie itself, as they are about the tax in general. Gillard just cannot be trusted. Whether or not you believe that climate change us real is not the point here.people are just fed up wither perpetual lying. Of course many of her failed policies, like border patrol and the carbon tax themselves are to blame for Labor's dire polling. It's not that they've failed to gain votes from the swingers like me, but they've even lost a fair amount of their hardcore base. So how is NZ?

Pretty nice, from my experience. I haven't been there since I was 27, though, 14 years ago.

Why do you ask?

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 12:22pm:

You mean self-interest and power at any cost?

Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power?
Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know"
He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone.
1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people.

You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick.
Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this.
It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass.

Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds.

The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them?
Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:22pm: You mean self-interest and power at any cost? Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power? Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know" He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone. 1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people. You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick. Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this. It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass. Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds. The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them? Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care.

I know all of this, and how many times do I need to say that I don't like either.

If Abbott were in, I would probably be saying the same things about him. But he isn't, Gillard is, and she lied, and I am not putting up with that.

It's not that I want Abbott in, it's that I want her out. You of all people, smithy, I thought would understand that it's not always either/or.

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:34pm: john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:22pm: You mean self-interest and power at any cost? Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power? Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know" He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone. 1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people. You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick. Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this. It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass. Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds. The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them? Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care. I know all of this, and how many times do I need to say that I don't like either. If Abbott were in, I would probably be saying the same things about him. But he isn't, Gillard is, and she lied, and I am not putting up with that. It's not that I want Abbott in, it's that I want her out. You of all people, smithy, I thought would understand that it's not always either/or.

In a 2 party state John it is very much a case of either or.
All this hand wringing over lies is a weak diversion but seems it strong enough to distract most simple minded Aussies.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:22pm: You mean self-interest and power at any cost? Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power? Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know" He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone. 1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people. You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick. Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this. It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass. Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds. The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them? Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care.

Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:11pm:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:38pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:34pm: john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:22pm: You mean self-interest and power at any cost? Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power? Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know" He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone. 1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people. You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick. Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this. It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass. Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds. The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them? Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care. I know all of this, and how many times do I need to say that I don't like either. If Abbott were in, I would probably be saying the same things about him. But he isn't, Gillard is, and she lied, and I am not putting up with that. It's not that I want Abbott in, it's that I want her out. You of all people, smithy, I thought would understand that it's not always either/or. In a 2 party state John it is very much a case of either or. All this hand wringing over lies is a weak diversion but seems it strong enough to distract most simple minded Aussies.

That's because most people keep voting for the two parties.

I don't like being lied to, regardless of which of the two parties does it. I just want Gillard and Labor gone.

Of course that means a Coalition government, and I don't have high hopes at all for this Opposition, but I'll give Abbott a go any day over Gillard. Lesser of two evils, or perhaps more 'unknown of two evils.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:34pm: john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 12:22pm: You mean self-interest and power at any cost? Do you numb nuts actually understand that politics is about power? Do you really think Abbott was sitting back saying"Well if I can be of use just let me know" He was negotiating as aggressively as anyone. 1 Billion dollars worth of our money to a hospital at the arse end of the world thats lucky to service 30,000 people. You know WHY he didn't get the nod, because everyone knew he was a lying prick. Our elected representatives are charged with forming a government that will last the term, they did this. It's not Gillard's fault Tony is as transparent as glass. Oh & would you be accusing Abbott of power for powers sake had they gone with him, no of course not, your hypocrisy noes no bounds. The next election is getting close, how about forgetting about Gillard & promoting your mans ideas & how he will achieve them? Oh again that's right he has none & you fools don't care. Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well.

I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well.

Other than the CT what else has she sold you out on?


john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:19pm:

I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power.

Yeah nothing like hyperbole to keep the home fires burning.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:16pm: Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well. Other than the CT what else has she sold you out on? john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:19pm: I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power. Yeah nothing like hyperbole to keep the home fires burning.

you want more

and the CT is not a small white lie is it?

Maqqa wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:16pm: Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well. Other than the CT what else has she sold you out on? john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:19pm: I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power. Yeah nothing like hyperbole to keep the home fires burning. you want more and the CT is not a small white lie is it?

Yes longy saying she sold out everything, other than CT I really cant think of anything else, expand my mind or admit you've got nothing.

Small/White, Massive/Black big deal we could even go Core/Non Core, maybe that's how Labor should have handled it,
"Well it was a non core promise"

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:12am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising.

I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::)

skippy. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 2:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::)

I beg to differ.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 2:45pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) Maybe you are,andria, but I wouldn't try and say I knew more than a scientific expert, like long weekend is saying. I beg to differ.

Maqqa wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 1:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:16pm: Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well. Other than the CT what else has she sold you out on? john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:19pm: I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power. Yeah nothing like hyperbole to keep the home fires burning. you want more and the CT is not a small white lie is it?

Abbott said it was the best way to tackle climate change and carbon pollution..was he lying?

adelcrow wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:29pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:16pm: Gillard sold all her promises and all her principles for power. do we really have to applaud that? yes, pollies seek power, but not all of them would sell their soul for it. Trouble is, Gillard would sell OURS for it as well. Other than the CT what else has she sold you out on? john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 1:19pm: I don't know if there's even a limit on what this evil sociopath would do for power. Yeah nothing like hyperbole to keep the home fires burning. you want more and the CT is not a small white lie is it? Abbott said it was the best way to tackle climate change and carbon pollution..was he lying?

Was Julia Gillard lying when she said there would be no carbon tax under a Government she leads?
Or does she not lead this Government?

Was Nicola Roxon lying when she said plans to remove the private health rebate was mere Liberal scaremongering?
Or was she unaware Wayne Swan had plans then to remove it for millions of Australians?

It's all about perspective isn't it?

I see, in Andrei's world it is ok to lie because in his mind  someone else did.

Nope I just think when you have so many biased people on here they tend to just view one side.

Everything Abbott does is wrong with some of you, and you seem completely happy to ignore some of the other things people do.

If I recall right, you thought it would be funny if that Dobell guy who bangs hookers gets off, just so the Government teeters on for a few more months?
Irrelevant of the fact the poorest workers in Australia were ripped off?

It's about seeing both sides, like I can.

Andrei, I too am sick of the blatant bias and double standard that the vast majority of posters have on here.

That goes for bohe Liberal and Labor and Green supporters. Posters who can judge things objectively from all sides are few and far between.

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:12pm:

Andrei, I too am sick of the blatant bias and double standard that the vast majority of posters have on here. That goes for bohe Liberal and Labor and Green supporters. Posters who can judge things objectively from all sides are few and far between.

You must get a clear view from NZ. All those tall mountains and crisp, clean air. Can you see Russia from there?

Gist wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:43pm:

john_g wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 5:12pm: Andrei, I too am sick of the blatant bias and double standard that the vast majority of posters have on here. That goes for bohe Liberal and Labor and Green supporters. Posters who can judge things objectively from all sides are few and far between. You must get a clear view from NZ. All those tall mountains and crisp, clean air. Can you see Russia from there?

i wonder if he see Andrei in the Fitzroy internet cafe he uses after someone drops a dollar in his hat after a rendition of "Daydream Believer"?

skippy. wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 2:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::)

In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong.

Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline.

You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 7:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses.

Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof.

john_g wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:12pm:

Andrei, I too am sick of the blatant bias and double standard that the vast majority of posters have on here. That goes for bohe Liberal and Labor and Green supporters. Posters who can judge things objectively from all sides are few and far between.

People who don't think like you are biased.

Got it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Nope I just think when you have so many biased people on here they tend to just view one side. Everything Abbott does is wrong with some of you, and you seem completely happy to ignore some of the other things people do. If I recall right, you thought it would be funny if that Dobell guy who bangs hookers gets off, just so the Government teeters on for a few more months? Irrelevant of the fact the poorest workers in Australia were ripped off? It's about seeing both sides, like I can.

Without getting into any discussion about how many sides you see, I agree that the vast majority of people have fixed ideas about who is Good, Bad & Ugly in Politics & for the vast majority people, those fixed ideas are not likely to change, no matter what happens!

I'm also sure that Abbott is not a complete fool & he does do somethings, where even I would agree with him & I have done so, although rarely.

That said, my opinion of Abbott is quite low, as is my opinion of Julia Gillard and 99% of all Politicians.

So, I suppose it could also be said that I to am biased, as I don't think hardly any of them are worth what they are paid. 

In fact, I would go as far as to say, that almost all Politicians, in terms of value to the Public, would struggle to be worth 2 nobs of Goat excreta.

Labor should never had cut Rudd off
and make out like it never happened and that he was nothing
he doesnt even need their love
but they treat him like a stranger and that must feel so ruff



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFZsLzRwKW8

Gist wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 8:03pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof.

How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right.

Looks like Labor are doing as well as your Olympic team.

New Zealand has 2 more gold medals than you do.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:28am:

Looks like Labor are doing as well as your Olympic team. New Zealand has 2 more gold medals than you do.

point? If the measure of a country is olympic gold then we are in trouble, but not as much as the person that thinks it IS a measure worth considering.

National pride is always worth measuring.

Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London.

I try and give Aussies a wide berth when Im overseas..most of them are an embarrassment to themselves and Australia so its no wonder the rest of the world cheers when they come unstuck

adelcrow wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:45am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:38am: National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London. I try and give Aussies a wide berth when Im overseas..most of them are an embarrassment to themselves and Australia so its no wonder the rest of the world cheers when they come unstuck

I would put forward it's probably a very significant reason behind New Zealand's attitude on Australia.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:45am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:38am: National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London. I try and give Aussies a wide berth when Im overseas..most of them are an embarrassment to themselves and Australia so its no wonder the rest of the world cheers when they come unstuck I would put forward it's probably a very significant reason behind New Zealand's attitude on Australia.

The sad thing is its getting worse..

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London.

national pride needs to be measured in more ways than gold medals. in fact, gold medals are a worthless measurement of anything other than an individuals performance. Genuine National pride is an aggregated measure (look it up). Anything else is bread and circuses.

Id rather live in a country of strong economics and harmonious inner relationships than a bankrupt, riven society on the verge of social and economic collapse. A few (or even a lot of) gold medals would never change that.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 10:04am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:38am: National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London. national pride needs to be measured in more ways than gold medals. in fact, gold medals are a worthless measurement of anything other than an individuals performance. Genuine National pride is an aggregated measure (look it up). Anything else is bread and circuses. Id rather live in a country of strong economics and harmonious inner relationships than a bankrupt, riven society on the verge of social and economic collapse. A few (or even a lot of) gold medals would never change that.

That doesn't change the fact the most Aussies act like dickheads when they leave these shores.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 10:04am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:38am: National pride is always worth measuring. Particularly when Aussies have spent the best part of a decade loud mouthing it around London. national pride needs to be measured in more ways than gold medals. in fact, gold medals are a worthless measurement of anything other than an individuals performance. Genuine National pride is an aggregated measure (look it up). Anything else is bread and circuses. Id rather live in a country of strong economics and harmonious inner relationships than a bankrupt, riven society on the verge of social and economic collapse. A few (or even a lot of) gold medals would never change that. That doesn't change the fact the most Aussies act like dickheads when they leave these shores.

And if that were even remotely related to the original OP or even the tangential topic it might be a debatable point. For now, it sounds like you wanted a whinge. Well you got on. feel better now?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right.

Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow.

It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

National pride is always worth measuring.

Like $40 million of taxpayer money for every gold medal earned over the last 20 years?


Quote:

$40 million: it’s how much each gold medal costs us Dr James Connor writes: How much support  — financial, medical, coaching, training  — would you need to reach the pinnacle of your profession? If you are an athlete in Australia, then about $40 million. That is a conservative estimate of what each Olympic gold medal in the last 20 years has cost Australian taxpayers. Tamsyn Lewis may be fed up with running against all those alleged drug cheats. But let’s spare a thought for the countless athletes around the world who will never get to compete at the Olympics and never have the chance to complain that it isn’t fair. The “level” playing field in sport is as shonky as China’s promise to allow media freedom. Sport, especially at the elite level, is not fair, has never been fair and will never be fair. Global inequality is mirrored in the medal tally rankings. Elite sport long ago moved away from the amateur athlete, training in their spare time with a non-professional coach. It is now an industry, with athletes merely being the sharp point of a massive sporting-industrial-medical complex that trains, tests, tweaks and manipulates the athlete almost to death. And this of course requires a lot of money. If you are from a poor nation then your only hope is to be lucky enough to get noticed by a rich one, then you can sell out your country of origin and sign up for them. At a global level there is a simple reason why African athletes perform well at track events, but not field events or swimming (no, its not just genetics) — it is because running requires very little in the way of material resources. Conversely, a single Olympic quality pole for pole vaulting costs at least US$500 (typically a vaulter would have a dozen poles which break quickly), to say nothing of the bar, uprights, pit, bags and run up track. Similarly, the capital investment and maintenance cost of an Olympic standard 50 metre pool is beyond the means of many countries, while our swimmers got a pool specifically built with bio-mechanical testing equipment embedded at a cost of $17 million. Drugs do make a difference in sporting performance, but the difference is marginal if you are not already at the pinnacle of your sport. Of course, in the case of Tamsyn Lewis, who is 1.6 seconds off the world pace in the 400m, drugs might just help her claw a second or two from her time. But, she would not have even scraped into the Olympics if she had not been an Australian elite athlete  — with all the support that entails. So the next time an elite athlete whines about it not being “fair”, ask them how many years of assistance they have got from the Australian public purse, how many coaches, physios and sports scientists helped them, how often they get special high altitude training at Thredbo, how many times their technique has been mapped and analysed at the AIS to micro-manage it. Let’s remember the other athletes, the ones not lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country obsessed with sporting success.

Gist wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are.

Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think.

Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress.

Gist wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress.

Having a conversation with bananaman is a waste of time...we've all learnt over the years that abuse is the only tool in his bag.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 10:08am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. Having a conversation with bananaman is a waste of time...we've all learnt over the years that abuse is the only tool in his bag.

Watching both of you slither around avoiding any argument and misinterpreting as much as possible, I understand why you dont debate with people. You clearly lack the understanding of how to make a coherent credible argument.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 11:22am: Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 10:08am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. Having a conversation with bananaman is a waste of time...we've all learnt over the years that abuse is the only tool in his bag. Watching both of you slither around avoiding any argument and misinterpreting as much as possible, I understand why you dont debate with people. You clearly lack the understanding of how to make a coherent credible argument.

I havent seen you put any arguments forward yet

adelcrow wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 3:17pm: adelcrow wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 11:22am: Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 10:08am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. Having a conversation with bananaman is a waste of time...we've all learnt over the years that abuse is the only tool in his bag. Watching both of you slither around avoiding any argument and misinterpreting as much as possible, I understand why you dont debate with people. You clearly lack the understanding of how to make a coherent credible argument. I havent seen you put any arguments forward yet

My argument was on the inherent weakness of 'consensus' as evidence. AS usual, it was lost in the rush of abuse by people who didnt understand the thrust of the argument.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:40pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 3:18pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 3:17pm: adelcrow wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 11:22am: Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 10:08am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: Gist wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 8:03pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 2:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 11:12am: skippy. wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 9:05am: Quote: islands havent sunk overnight Islands in the pacific ocean are and have been sinking ,cods, I really dont know where you get your information from, but its wrong. ::) The islands are sinking because they are coral attols- as they've always done - rise and fall. the sea however is not rising. I'm glad I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the overwhelming majority of the science community. ::) In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Sooo.... you think the "ether" theory is correct. You'd better come up with some pretty stunning proof. How did you get from my post to this stunning inability to understand what was said. The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. Concensus is not an alternative to being right. Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. Having a conversation with bananaman is a waste of time...we've all learnt over the years that abuse is the only tool in his bag. Watching both of you slither around avoiding any argument and misinterpreting as much as possible, I understand why you dont debate with people. You clearly lack the understanding of how to make a coherent credible argument. I havent seen you put any arguments forward yet My argument was on the inherent weakness of 'consensus' as evidence. AS usual, it was lost in the rush of abuse by people who didnt understand the thrust of the argument.

The only abuse I've seen is from you. The only arguments I've seen haven't been from you. Let us know when you manage to think of one.

Maybe you could borrow one or something? Go out on the street, ask passers by. You never know your luck in the big city.

This is an argument...

In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong.

Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline.

You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses.

Now try and see if you can even understand it.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

This is an argument... In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Now try and see if you can even understand it.

Yeah, saw that rubbish. And this was my argument in response:


Gist wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are.

To which your reply was abuse which is hardly surprising from you. Maybe this time you could actually try reading it? I know it's hard and you have to sound the words out and everything but you really should try occasionally.

Gist wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 4:13pm: This is an argument... In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Now try and see if you can even understand it. Yeah, saw that rubbish. And this was my argument in response: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. To which your reply was abuse which is hardly surprising from you. Maybe this time you could actually try reading it? I know it's hard and you have to sound the words out and everything but you really should try occasionally.

The illogic you used to come up with my support for the ether theory is what demonstrates your own problems. its pretty pointless debating with someone who just redefines, reinterprets or flat-out lies in response.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04pm:

Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think.

Gist wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 10:08am:

Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

The illogic you used to come up with my support for the ether theory is what demonstrates your own problems. its pretty pointless debating with someone who just redefines, reinterprets or flat-out lies in response.

To which Gist of course says:
Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress.

FWIW, a smart man would have stopped the first time around the loop. And then there's you...

Let us know if you ever manage to find someone who can give you a basis for debate. Try and find a smart one though.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 6:04pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 4:13pm: This is an argument... In the last century, the overwhelming majority of scientists believed in the 'ether' as well as thinking Einstein was wrong. Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. You can either believe the herd and follow like lemmings off a cliff or you can use your own brain and assess the evidence yourself. The main evidence in existence is the failure of the consensus opinion to ever be accurate in any model, any prediction or in any way show their climate hypotheses to any more than educated guesses. Now try and see if you can even understand it. Yeah, saw that rubbish. And this was my argument in response: Gist wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Well let me explain it to you given as you're so slow. It's an alternative theory. And according to YOU, we can't throw out alternative theories no matter HOW many people debunk them. After all, that's a consensus position. So YOU are stuck with believing the ether theory despite it being ridiculous. Therefore you believe in the ether theory. As far as I'm concerned, that's a pretty stupid thing for you to believe in really, but there you are. To which your reply was abuse which is hardly surprising from you. Maybe this time you could actually try reading it? I know it's hard and you have to sound the words out and everything but you really should try occasionally. The illogic you used to come up with my support for the ether theory is what demonstrates your own problems. its pretty pointless debating with someone who just redefines, reinterprets or flat-out lies in response.

I know what you mean. We have a poster by the name of long weekend and he tells lies in every post he makes, very annoying, but most of us just laugh at him.  :D

Not a single seat in any of those four states? HA! So well deserved, too. They shoulsn't have a single seat left in the whole country.

Gist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04pm: Dont get a job trying to argue a position thru logic and fact. This post of yours is an embarrassment to your clearly limited ability to think. Gist wrote on Aug 5th, 2012 at 10:08am: Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. gold_medal wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:05pm: The illogic you used to come up with my support for the ether theory is what demonstrates your own problems. its pretty pointless debating with someone who just redefines, reinterprets or flat-out lies in response. To which Gist of course says: Ah, so you acknowledge your position is a stupid, indefensible one? Well done then, you've made progress. FWIW, a smart man would have stopped the first time around the loop. And then there's you... Let us know if you ever manage to find someone who can give you a basis for debate. Try and find a smart one though.

it takes a form of mental illness to read the words 'I dont believe in the ether theory' and come up with 'I beleive in the ether theory'.  perhaps prevailing isnt the only posters whose medication needs some help.

I assume you are unemployed (and unemployable?) based on the amount and times you post as well as the infantile content you vomit onto the screen.

Vomit, uneducated, mentally ill, unemployable blah blah...
Gist..you're playing with a Troll  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

Vomit, uneducated, mentally ill, unemployable blah blah... Gist..you're playing with a Troll  ;D

nice to see you are following me around. You do know that that is one of the definitions of a troll?

Does it really train you so much to come up with posts that arent idiotic nonsense?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 6:03pm: Vomit, uneducated, mentally ill, unemployable blah blah... Gist..you're playing with a Troll  ;D nice to see you are following me around. You do know that that is one of the definitions of a troll? Does it really train you so much to come up with posts that arent idiotic nonsense?

Like I said people..this fella is just the same old Troll that drops by every now and then until he gets banned.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

it takes a form of mental illness to read the words 'I dont believe in the ether theory' and come up with 'I beleive in the ether theory'.  perhaps prevailing isnt the only posters whose medication needs some help.

So obviously you didn't understand a word I wrote. That's hardly surprising from you longdope. Perhaps you could toddle off to a kindergarten and ask one of the other kids to explain it to you? You know, a smart person would have asked questions, gathered information tried to find an angle. The drooling troll would simply attack the other. Which are you longtroll?

Look, let me make it simple for you since you're obviously sitting there at the back of the nematode class. You said:


gold_medal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so.

So go ahead - let's see you perform at high school student level and debunk it. Don't bother cutting and pasting from wikipedia because I'll just laugh at you.

I mean, I'll laugh at you even louder and longer.

How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet?

Gist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet?

Your degree in Dance and your other one in Gender Studies hardly qualifies you to comment on Theoretical Physics and in fact, scarcely qualifies you to talk about much at all!

gold_medal wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:02pm: How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet? Your degree in Dance and your other one in Gender Studies hardly qualifies you to comment on Theoretical Physics and in fact, scarcely qualifies you to talk about much at all!

Couldn't find one eh? Or did you find one and still couldn't understand what the smack he was saying?

Yet again you shot your fat mouth off without having the faintest clue what you're talking about. As always. Is there anything that you are qualified in? Oh yes of course - lying! You've got a gold medal in that. And a silver in stupidity too I gather. Well done!

Gist wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:13pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:02pm: How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet? Your degree in Dance and your other one in Gender Studies hardly qualifies you to comment on Theoretical Physics and in fact, scarcely qualifies you to talk about much at all! Couldn't find one eh? Or did you find one and still couldn't understand what the smack he was saying? Yet again you shot your fat mouth off without having the faintest clue what you're talking about. As always. Is there anything that you are qualified in? Oh yes of course - lying! You've got a gold medal in that. And a silver in stupidity too I gather. Well done!

Do you even know what the Ether Theory was or what was the obvious and simple repudiation of it?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 11^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 8:13pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:02pm: How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet? Your degree in Dance and your other one in Gender Studies hardly qualifies you to comment on Theoretical Physics and in fact, scarcely qualifies you to talk about much at all! Couldn't find one eh? Or did you find one and still couldn't understand what the smack he was saying? Yet again you shot your fat mouth off without having the faintest clue what you're talking about. As always. Is there anything that you are qualified in? Oh yes of course - lying! You've got a gold medal in that. And a silver in stupidity too I gather. Well done! Do you even know what the Ether Theory was or what was the obvious and simple repudiation of it?

The ether theory? You mean the theory that all of space is filled with an insubstantial, invisible ether that is the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation? Yes I do. I learned about it all those years ago in high school. The question is do you know? Obviously not.

You obviously also haven't the first clue about science in general given that you claim that it is subject to some immutable "truth" that's written down somewhere in a book or something and isn't subject to consensus. Only someone completely ignorant of science such as yourself would ever make such a claim.

But then, that comes as no surprise. You're hardly the brightest bulb in the pack are you?

Gist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 11th, 2012 at 7:41pm: Gist wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 8:13pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 5:33pm: Gist wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:02pm: How are you going longdope? Found a high school student to explain it to you yet? Your degree in Dance and your other one in Gender Studies hardly qualifies you to comment on Theoretical Physics and in fact, scarcely qualifies you to talk about much at all! Couldn't find one eh? Or did you find one and still couldn't understand what the smack he was saying? Yet again you shot your fat mouth off without having the faintest clue what you're talking about. As always. Is there anything that you are qualified in? Oh yes of course - lying! You've got a gold medal in that. And a silver in stupidity too I gather. Well done! Do you even know what the Ether Theory was or what was the obvious and simple repudiation of it? The ether theory? You mean the theory that all of space is filled with an insubstantial, invisible ether that is the medium of propagation for electromagnetic radiation? Yes I do. I learned about it all those years ago in high school. The question is do you know? Obviously not. You obviously also haven't the first clue about science in general given that you claim that it is subject to some immutable "truth" that's written down somewhere in a book or something and isn't subject to consensus. Only someone completely ignorant of science such as yourself would ever make such a claim. But then, that comes as no surprise. You're hardly the brightest bulb in the pack are you?

you must be EXCEEDINGLY old to have learned about ether in school since it was debunked in the 50s. And despite this debate you still seem to indicate that you believe in this theory. Is it possible that you have learned no new information since highschool 60 years ago?

Yet another thread of juvenile name-calling.

Nice to see how the thread has remained so on-topic and a good and respectful debate from both sides.

john_g wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

Yet another thread of juvenile name-calling. Nice to see how the thread has remained so on-topic and a good and respectful debate from both sides.

Threads get derailed most times so this is nothing new. The question of 'ether' came up as an example of how 'consensus' among scientists is no alternative to getting it right. Consensus has often supported the wrong theory or policy. Nothing new here except for Gist who doesnt seem to get the argument and who apparently, still believes the ether theory.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

you must be EXCEEDINGLY old to have learned about ether in school since it was debunked in the 50s. And despite this debate you still seem to indicate that you believe in this theory. Is it possible that you have learned no new information since highschool 60 years ago?

Still haven't found a high school kid to explain it to you eh? Or are you still looking for a primary school kid to act as translator? Never mind.

Of course being a righty goldfish you have trouble remembering to the end of the sentence and you have the reading age of a preschooler so you can be forgiven for appearing terminally thick. Otherwise you'd remember that YOU raised the ether theory, YOU claimed that it was easily debunked by any high school kid and that when I asked you to go ahead and debunk it YOU FAILED.

I haven't said a thing about it either way.

And yes, I did learn about it. That doesn't make me particularly old, it simply makes me well educated because y'see they taught me about it when they taught me why it was wrong.

I could also point out to you that this was a second chance offered to you because you completely FAILED at the first task I gave you.

But then, you are a righty and therefore have the brains of a goldfish, as I said. You'll of course have forgotten about that by now which is why I remind you once again at the end of the sentence. You. Goldfish.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 6:08pm:

john_g wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:50pm: Yet another thread of juvenile name-calling. Nice to see how the thread has remained so on-topic and a good and respectful debate from both sides. Threads get derailed most times so this is nothing new. The question of 'ether' came up as an example of how 'consensus' among scientists is no alternative to getting it right. Consensus has often supported the wrong theory or policy. Nothing new here except for Gist who doesnt seem to get the argument and who apparently, still believes the ether theory.

"Getting it right"  ;D ;D ;D ;D

What an ignorant thing to say. Please enlighten us. How do you know if a scientist has "got it right"? See if you can come up with anything this second time around seeing as you completely FAILED the first time.

You may need to find that primary school kid to help you before you go any further.

Gist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:49pm: you must be EXCEEDINGLY old to have learned about ether in school since it was debunked in the 50s. And despite this debate you still seem to indicate that you believe in this theory. Is it possible that you have learned no new information since highschool 60 years ago? Still haven't found a high school kid to explain it to you eh? Or are you still looking for a primary school kid to act as translator? Never mind. Of course being a righty goldfish you have trouble remembering to the end of the sentence and you have the reading age of a preschooler so you can be forgiven for appearing terminally thick. Otherwise you'd remember that YOU raised the ether theory, YOU claimed that it was easily debunked by any high school kid and that when I asked you to go ahead and debunk it YOU FAILED. I haven't said a thing about it either way. And yes, I did learn about it. That doesn't make me particularly old, it simply makes me well educated because y'see they taught me about it when they taught me why it was wrong. I could also point out to you that this was a second chance offered to you because you completely FAILED at the first task I gave you. But then, you are a righty and therefore have the brains of a goldfish, as I said. You'll of course have forgotten about that by now which is why I remind you once again at the end of the sentence. You. Goldfish.

Your poor comprehension is only matched by your inability to clearly pose a question. now that you finally have done so, the ether theory was easily debunked by the speed of light being consistent in any direction whereas the ether theory would have demanded a differential. Easily disproved just as easily as working out that not every type of wave motion requires a medium.

See how easy that was? formulate a CLEAR question and you might get a clear answer.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 7:07pm:

Your poor comprehension is only matched by your inability to clearly pose a question. now that you finally have done so, the ether theory was easily debunked by the speed of light being consistent in any direction whereas the ether theory would have demanded a differential. Easily disproved just as easily as working out that not every type of wave motion requires a medium. See how easy that was? formulate a CLEAR question and you might get a clear answer.

I can see how your pre-school reading age would have had trouble with my question as posed:


Gist wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. So go ahead - let's see you perform at high school student level and debunk it.

I thought it was fairly straightforward but ... well...

And you haven't debunked anything. What you've quoted is the Michaelson-Morley experiment which found no evidence of a differential in the speed of light. The theory expected there to be a differential. The consensus was therefore that the theory had to be flawed and modifications to the theory were proposed.

Which brings us to the original point of discussion. Consensus in science and your complete lack of understanding of it. You said:


gold_medal wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline.

So, as requested, a simple question for you given your status as a slow reading goldfish:

If you throw out consensus, how do you know your theory is correct?

Keep that kid on standby.

Gist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 7:07pm: Your poor comprehension is only matched by your inability to clearly pose a question. now that you finally have done so, the ether theory was easily debunked by the speed of light being consistent in any direction whereas the ether theory would have demanded a differential. Easily disproved just as easily as working out that not every type of wave motion requires a medium. See how easy that was? formulate a CLEAR question and you might get a clear answer. I can see how your pre-school reading age would have had trouble with my question as posed: Gist wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 6:25pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 4th, 2012 at 9:04am: The ether theory was a ridiculous one - even then. A high School student could debunk it but it was accepted by physicists in a consensus form. and they were wrong - and obviously so. So go ahead - let's see you perform at high school student level and debunk it. I thought it was fairly straightforward but ... well... And you haven't debunked anything. What you've quoted is the Michaelson-Morley experiment which found no evidence of a differential in the speed of light. The theory expected there to be a differential. The consensus was therefore that the theory had to be flawed and modifications to the theory were proposed. Which brings us to the original point of discussion. Consensus in science and your complete lack of understanding of it. You said: gold_medal wrote on Aug 3rd, 2012 at 7:42pm: Consensus does not equal correctness. it merely increases the probability of being correct without actually offering anything tangible to add to the debate. Scienctific history is littered with examples of 'crackpot theories' that were rejected by their peers and now stand as pillars of their respective discipline. So, as requested, a simple question for you given your status as a slow reading goldfish: If you throw out consensus, how do you know your theory is correct? Keep that kid on standby.

And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:18am:

And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again.

You again demonstrate your complete ignorance. What evidence did the Michaelson-Morley experiment provide? It's a simple, straightforward question. Go ahead and answer it.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:18am: And thereby stands the ultimate flaw in your idea of the scientific process. Consensus is not evidence and never has been. Consensus reduces the risk of being wrong but is not in itself any kind of evidence. Just as consensus believed in the ether theory and consensus initially rejected Einstein, consensus is over-rated. And when you start to rely on consensus rather than evidence then you are back in the stone age of '4 elements' again. You again demonstrate your complete ignorance. What evidence did the Michaelson-Morley experiment provide? It's a simple, straightforward question. Go ahead and answer it.

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:46am:

deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all.

Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:46am: deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all. Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question.

As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus.

two degrees my ass.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:06am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:46am: deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all. Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question. As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus. two degrees my ass.

Cant answer the question eh? Hardly a surprise given you don't know much about anything. And of course you'll be too thick to understand why your bleating about consensus is total crap.

You see, the MM experiment provided a fact. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't explain anything. It's like saying the sky is blue. Well fine... but why is it blue?

To explain stuff needs theory.

There is NO way of ascertaining whether a theory is correct. Just because it fits the known facts doesn't amount to anything. All we know is when a theory is NOT correct. We know it is not correct simply because it doesn't fit the known facts.

So we go on consensus - that is, the experts look at a theory from their particular field of expertise and agree that a given theory fits the facts that they know. When enough of them do that then the general view is that that theory is the best one we can come up with. At least until a new fact comes along.

Now you tell me how in your imaginary world you are able to look up some book of facts and state categorically that any given theory is correct or not. Because without consensus, that's what you need.

This should be interesting.  :D :D :D

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:44am: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:06am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:46am: deflection... we are not debating the ether theory. We are debating the use of CONSENSUS in the scientific process. But of course being a person who agrees with any theory that everybody else agrees with you cannot cope with the fact that consensus has been almost as wrong as it has been right and has no evidentiary value at all. Yes, that's right, we're talking about consensus. So what did the experiment show? What evidence did it provide? It's a simple question. As usual you deflect so much you are unware of it. You have not YET once addressed the issue of 'consensus'. If I provide yet another example of consensus agreeing with a false theory you will want to discuss the theory rather than the failed consensus. two degrees my ass. Cant answer the question eh? Hardly a surprise given you don't know much about anything. And of course you'll be too thick to understand why your bleating about consensus is total crap. You see, the MM experiment provided a fact. That's it. Nothing else. It doesn't explain anything. It's like saying the sky is blue. Well fine... but why is it blue? To explain stuff needs theory. There is NO way of ascertaining whether a theory is correct. Just because it fits the known facts doesn't amount to anything. All we know is when a theory is NOT correct. We know it is not correct simply because it doesn't fit the known facts. So we go on consensus - that is, the experts look at a theory from their particular field of expertise and agree that a given theory fits the facts that they know. When enough of them do that then the general view is that that theory is the best one we can come up with. At least until a new fact comes along. Now you tell me how in your imaginary world you are able to look up some book of facts and state categorically that any given theory is correct or not. Because without consensus, that's what you need. This should be interesting.  :D :D :D

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

That explains so much - all of it bad. If we all agree that water is a fuel then suddenly it is?

Consensus: the untrained and unthinking man's 'science'.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:

So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science?

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you.

That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'.

Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions"

Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900.

Consensus: Delusion with confidence

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:53pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you. That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'. Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions" Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900. Consensus: Delusion with confidence

So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact.

Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus.

SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

LOL Gist, the rest of the world ten zillion sad sock lonwhine zilch.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:53pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you. That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'. Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions" Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900. Consensus: Delusion with confidence So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact. Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus. SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please.

Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons.

To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:53pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you. That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'. Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions" Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900. Consensus: Delusion with confidence So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact. Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus. SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please. Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons. To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with.

...and so your backpedalling begins...  ;D ;D ;D

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:16pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:07pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:53pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 12:45pm: So in your mind, nothing can ever be proven and so consensus is your only source of science? Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote for once. You may need that primary school kid to explain it to you. That is exactly the effect of what you are saying. You would have been a strong supporter of the ether theory because it was the consensus position and of course the book 300 scientists against Eistein would have been 301 with you included. And you would have been wrong both times. In fact, true scientists dont take the consensus position and swallow it as gospel. They push it, probe it and replace it with truth while lesser minds say 'if 90% of the worlds scientists say such and suchm then it must be true'. Einstein in response to the book "It takes just one fact to dispel 300 opinions" Consensus...bah humbug. The land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused. Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. the Consensus view was that we 'know everythign there is to know about the atom" circa 1900. Consensus: Delusion with confidence So, I take it that you consider Einsteins relativity to be cast-iron bullet proof 100% guaranteed fact. Oh no.. you couldn't. Because that is the consensus position. It must therefore belong in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused". You decry the consensus. SO. Have a read of your gospel book of truth. Tell us the real facts. Where is relativity wrong? It's a simple question, simply framed. I'd like an answer please. Eisteins special theory of relativity is not perfect. and it also was strongly rejected at the time - consensus at work. The notion of particles not able to exist at or above the speed of light is especially wrong and equally difficult to disprove for obvious reasons. To try and clarify for your fevered mind: consensus is not any form of evidence. Not one iotoa of evidence. You would make a terrible scientist if your only methodology is to mindlessly accept everything that most people agree with. ...and so your backpedalling begins...  ;D ;D ;D

interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone.

Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed.

Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand...

I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:26pm: interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed. Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand... I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook.

Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Tachyons being suspected (not yet proven) to travel faster than light.

The experiment in slowing down the speed of light where the cause and effect law was flipped on its head (light entered the tube AFTER it exited.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 2:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:26pm: interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed. Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand... I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook. Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Tachyons being suspected (not yet proven) to travel faster than light. The experiment in slowing down the speed of light where the cause and effect law was flipped on its head (light entered the tube AFTER it exited.

So come on... what does your Big Book Of Facts say is the Real Honest Truth then?

And you do realise that tachyons are theory, not fact. It is a consensus among scientists that they may exist. Therefore that "fact" that you quoted is in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused" where you live.

Also that the stuff you quoted about neutrinos and slowing the speed of light is all part of particle physics. Now what did you have to say about that just now..?? Oh that's right:


gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics.

Make up your mind, is it Truth as per your Big Book of Facts or is it hogwash?

In any case, these random selections from your trawling of Wikipedia don't repudiate relativity. I'd like to see the repudiation thanks. I'm expecting something really concrete from you on that score seeing as you have the Big Book of Facts which can explain it all to you in agonising detail.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 3:36pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 2:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:26pm: interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed. Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand... I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook. Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Tachyons being suspected (not yet proven) to travel faster than light. The experiment in slowing down the speed of light where the cause and effect law was flipped on its head (light entered the tube AFTER it exited. So come on... what does your Big Book Of Facts say is the Real Honest Truth then? And you do realise that tachyons are theory, not fact. It is a consensus among scientists that they may exist. Therefore that "fact" that you quoted is in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused" where you live. Also that the stuff you quoted about neutrinos and slowing the speed of light is all part of particle physics. Now what did you have to say about that just now..?? Oh that's right: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. Make up your mind, is it Truth as per your Big Book of Facts or is it hogwash? In any case, these random selections from your trawling of Wikipedia don't repudiate relativity. I'd like to see the repudiation thanks. I'm expecting something really concrete from you on that score seeing as you have the Big Book of Facts which can explain it all to you in agonising detail.

Please explain this to me. I use Particle Physics as an example of how concensus was a failure and then you refer to this same discipline as a proof of the opposite?

And Tachyons dont suddenly become irrelevent just because they remain theoretical just as the Higgs Boson was theorerticl until recently. Flinders university some years ago performed an experiement that strongly suggested that tachyons with supra-relativistic particles.

What I am saying is that Relativity is not foolproof. I have no idea what you are saying other than disagreeing with everything I say even if it disgrees with what you've said in the past.

Non-integer partial dimensions are what will eventually explain many of the problems of most cosmological models AND supra-relativistic speed issues of some particles.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 3:36pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 2:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:26pm: interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed. Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand... I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook. Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Tachyons being suspected (not yet proven) to travel faster than light. The experiment in slowing down the speed of light where the cause and effect law was flipped on its head (light entered the tube AFTER it exited. So come on... what does your Big Book Of Facts say is the Real Honest Truth then? And you do realise that tachyons are theory, not fact. It is a consensus among scientists that they may exist. Therefore that "fact" that you quoted is in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused" where you live. Also that the stuff you quoted about neutrinos and slowing the speed of light is all part of particle physics. Now what did you have to say about that just now..?? Oh that's right: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. Make up your mind, is it Truth as per your Big Book of Facts or is it hogwash? In any case, these random selections from your trawling of Wikipedia don't repudiate relativity. I'd like to see the repudiation thanks. I'm expecting something really concrete from you on that score seeing as you have the Big Book of Facts which can explain it all to you in agonising detail. 'Please explain this to me. I use Particle Physics as an example of how concensus was a failure and then you refer to this same discipline as a proof of the opposite? And Tachyons dont suddenly become irrelevent just because they remain theoretical just as the Higgs Boson was theorerticl until recently. Flinders university some years ago performed an experiement that strongly suggested that tachyons with supra-relativistic particles. What I am saying is that Relativity is not foolproof. I have no idea what you are saying other than disagreeing with everything I say even if it disgrees with what you've said in the past. Non-integer partial dimensions are what will eventually explain many of the problems of most cosmological models AND supra-relativistic speed issues of some particles.

It would be nice if you referenced your posting rather than claiming it as your own.

lisa.greek wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:42pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 3:36pm: Gist wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 2:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:26pm: interesting definition of 'backpedalling' - like everything else you seek to redefine.  You tend to be pretty much a logic-free zone. Only SOB stops you from competing for Stupidest Poster. SOB has that one nailed. Spot is reasonably entertaining, he'll chat about pretty much anything and he's not so full of himself that he's worried about being wrong occasionally. YOU on the other hand... I await your explanation of where relativity fails to fit the Truth according to your Factbook. Neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light. Tachyons being suspected (not yet proven) to travel faster than light. The experiment in slowing down the speed of light where the cause and effect law was flipped on its head (light entered the tube AFTER it exited. So come on... what does your Big Book Of Facts say is the Real Honest Truth then? And you do realise that tachyons are theory, not fact. It is a consensus among scientists that they may exist. Therefore that "fact" that you quoted is in the "land of the intellectually bereft and the easily amused" where you live. Also that the stuff you quoted about neutrinos and slowing the speed of light is all part of particle physics. Now what did you have to say about that just now..?? Oh that's right: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:00pm: Consensus has given us slavery and genocide. non-conformity to the consensus of the day has given us the Civil Rights movment and the entire science of particle physics. Make up your mind, is it Truth as per your Big Book of Facts or is it hogwash? In any case, these random selections from your trawling of Wikipedia don't repudiate relativity. I'd like to see the repudiation thanks. I'm expecting something really concrete from you on that score seeing as you have the Big Book of Facts which can explain it all to you in agonising detail. 'Please explain this to me. I use Particle Physics as an example of how concensus was a failure and then you refer to this same discipline as a proof of the opposite? And Tachyons dont suddenly become irrelevent just because they remain theoretical just as the Higgs Boson was theorerticl until recently. Flinders university some years ago performed an experiement that strongly suggested that tachyons with supra-relativistic particles. What I am saying is that Relativity is not foolproof. I have no idea what you are saying other than disagreeing with everything I say even if it disgrees with what you've said in the past. Non-integer partial dimensions are what will eventually explain many of the problems of most cosmological models AND supra-relativistic speed issues of some particles. It would be nice if you referenced your posting rather than claiming it as your own.

IM not sure you even understand what I posted. the first sentence is an opinion and the second refers to an old FU experiment.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Please explain this to me. I use Particle Physics as an example of how concensus was a failure and then you refer to this same discipline as a proof of the opposite?

No, you gave three word slogans without explanation. If they are not interpreted the way you wanted then that's your problem.


gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

And Tachyons dont suddenly become irrelevent just because they remain theoretical just as the Higgs Boson was theorerticl until recently. Flinders university some years ago performed an experiement that strongly suggested that tachyons with supra-relativistic particles.

Nice theory but I want the proof. You can provide that can't you. Out of your Big Book of Facts.


gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

What I am saying is that Relativity is not foolproof. I have no idea what you are saying other than disagreeing with everything I say even if it disgrees with what you've said in the past. Non-integer partial dimensions are what will eventually explain many of the problems of most cosmological models AND supra-relativistic speed issues of some particles.

Actually you have no idea what you are saying. I can tell that in your imaginary world you really believe that everything you say is real. So does Prevailing. You should be worried about that.

Gist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:42pm: Please explain this to me. I use Particle Physics as an example of how concensus was a failure and then you refer to this same discipline as a proof of the opposite? No, you gave three word slogans without explanation. If they are not interpreted the way you wanted then that's your problem. gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:42pm: And Tachyons dont suddenly become irrelevent just because they remain theoretical just as the Higgs Boson was theorerticl until recently. Flinders university some years ago performed an experiement that strongly suggested that tachyons with supra-relativistic particles. Nice theory but I want the proof. You can provide that can't you. Out of your Big Book of Facts. gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:42pm: What I am saying is that Relativity is not foolproof. I have no idea what you are saying other than disagreeing with everything I say even if it disgrees with what you've said in the past. Non-integer partial dimensions are what will eventually explain many of the problems of most cosmological models AND supra-relativistic speed issues of some particles. Actually you have no idea what you are saying. I can tell that in your imaginary world you really believe that everything you say is real. So does Prevailing. You should be worried about that.

So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course?

Where is the proof for your guesswork? Show me the proof. I want to see a good mathematical foundation and then some solid factual experimental evidence.

Oh! You don't have any?

You mean you want me to agree with you without a shred of proof?? You mean you want consensus??? The consensus you claim is for loonies?

Moron. I'm guessing thinking doesn't actually fit into your kindergarten curriculum.

Gist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:40pm: So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course? Where is the proof for your guesswork? Show me the proof. I want to see a good mathematical foundation and then some solid factual experimental evidence. Oh! You don't have any? You mean you want me to agree with you without a shred of proof?? You mean you want consensus??? The consensus you claim is for loonies? Moron. I'm guessing thinking doesn't actually fit into your kindergarten curriculum.

yeah... because this is such a suitable forum for advanced mathematics and THEORETICAL physics.

But good to see that you are maintaining your reputation of tangential argument on everything. Youcannot argue a single topic because you always slid off it.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

Gist wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 9:48am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:40pm: So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course? Where is the proof for your guesswork? Show me the proof. I want to see a good mathematical foundation and then some solid factual experimental evidence. Oh! You don't have any? You mean you want me to agree with you without a shred of proof?? You mean you want consensus??? The consensus you claim is for loonies? Moron. I'm guessing thinking doesn't actually fit into your kindergarten curriculum. yeah... because this is such a suitable forum for advanced mathematics and THEORETICAL physics. But good to see that you are maintaining your reputation of tangential argument on everything. Youcannot argue a single topic because you always slid off it.

Good to see you're completely unable to back up your blatherings with a shred of any evidence as always. Keep plucking them out of your sphincter longtwit and I'll keep calling you out on it.  :D

Gist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 10:26am:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 10:19am: Gist wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 9:48am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:40pm: So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course? Where is the proof for your guesswork? Show me the proof. I want to see a good mathematical foundation and then some solid factual experimental evidence. Oh! You don't have any? You mean you want me to agree with you without a shred of proof?? You mean you want consensus??? The consensus you claim is for loonies? Moron. I'm guessing thinking doesn't actually fit into your kindergarten curriculum. yeah... because this is such a suitable forum for advanced mathematics and THEORETICAL physics. But good to see that you are maintaining your reputation of tangential argument on everything. Youcannot argue a single topic because you always slid off it. Good to see you're completely unable to back up your blatherings with a shred of any evidence as always. Keep plucking them out of your sphincter longtwit and I'll keep calling you out on it.  :D

if you want to 'call em out' you actually need to know the topic. then you catully have to STAY on the topic which you blatantly refuse to do.

CONSENSUS: the topic we were discussing before you moved it almost anywhere else because you dont understand it.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Gist wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 10:26am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 10:19am: Gist wrote on Aug 14th, 2012 at 9:48am: gold_medal wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:40pm: So Im guessing non-inter partial dimensions and compressed spacetime didnt quit fit into you BA (art history) course? Where is the proof for your guesswork? Show me the proof. I want to see a good mathematical foundation and then some solid factual experimental evidence. Oh! You don't have any? You mean you want me to agree with you without a shred of proof?? You mean you want consensus??? The consensus you claim is for loonies? Moron. I'm guessing thinking doesn't actually fit into your kindergarten curriculum. yeah... because this is such a suitable forum for advanced mathematics and THEORETICAL physics. But good to see that you are maintaining your reputation of tangential argument on everything. Youcannot argue a single topic because you always slid off it. Good to see you're completely unable to back up your blatherings with a shred of any evidence as always. Keep plucking them out of your sphincter longtwit and I'll keep calling you out on it.  :D if you want to 'call em out' you actually need to know the topic. then you catully have to STAY on the topic which you blatantly refuse to do. CONSENSUS: the topic we were discussing before you moved it almost anywhere else because you dont understand it.

And of course given you have the memory of a goldfish you're forgiven for being incapable of remembering to the end of the sentence. Otherwise you may remember that the subject was moved because YOU were completely incapable of answering the question.

So I gave you an alternative.

At which you of course failed.