Remember me
▼ Content

Definition of a Troll



Page 1 of 212>
Definition of a Troll25-09-2022 15:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.
25-09-2022 15:32
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.


What's up troll?
I can see the whining already started.
Edited on 25-09-2022 16:21
25-09-2022 17:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.
25-09-2022 18:23
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.
25-09-2022 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2022 19:08
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?
25-09-2022 21:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2022 21:42
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.
25-09-2022 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2022 22:05
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.


Repetitive BS. Troll confirmed.
25-09-2022 22:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.


Repetitive BS. Troll confirmed.

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2022 23:02
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.


Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.


No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.


Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.


Repetitive BS. Troll confirmed.

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Trolling.


Trolling the trolls.
RE: klimatdebat.dk is another "dead" rabbit hole26-09-2022 18:36
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.



Ah, yes! The "mirror" website is remarkably similar.

More than 2400 members signed up.

A handful actually participate.

They had 1 member logged on, and 9 guests on line a few minutes ago.

I didn't have the patience to wait and see when the number of "guests online" suddenly jumped to 50-200.

"Trolls immediately identify themselves..."

That's one of the few true things the dominant troll says in this stupid rant.

The owner is just as negligent at klimatdebat.dk as at climate-debate.com.

What is the Danish word for "scumbag"?
26-09-2022 18:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.



Ah, yes! The "mirror" website is remarkably similar.

More than 2400 members signed up.

A handful actually participate.

They had 1 member logged on, and 9 guests on line a few minutes ago.

I didn't have the patience to wait and see when the number of "guests online" suddenly jumped to 50-200.

"Trolls immediately identify themselves..."

That's one of the few true things the dominant troll says in this stupid rant.

The owner is just as negligent at klimatdebat.dk as at climate-debate.com.

What is the Danish word for "scumbag"?

Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-09-2022 04:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
I didn't have the patience to wait and see when the number of "guests online" suddenly jumped to 50-200.


Right on! I totally get it. I, much like you, am way too busy bitching because my free stuff ain't good enough and damnit, I don't have time to stare at the user count all damn day. Geesh! If only people were smart enough to create websites the way I want them. Scumbag morons.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
Edited on 27-09-2022 05:19
27-09-2022 04:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
GasGuzzler wrote:If only people were smart enough to create websites the way I want them.

If only people were smart enough to create libraries the way I want them.
27-09-2022 05:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2621)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:If only people were smart enough to create websites the way I want them.

If only people were smart enough to create libraries the way I want them.


Good catch. Yes, the libraries are the reason gamma boy never got his target audience.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
RE: definition of delusional - "one of the Internet's best discussion sites"27-09-2022 11:18
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

.
[/quote]


Definition of delusional:

For someone familiar with the website to say,

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the Internet's best discussion sites."

If this is a genuinely held belief, it is truly delusional.

It is an example of religious faith desperately needing to believe in the absurd.

I'll bet not even the half dozen who for some reason find it a tolerable place to communicate would agree that "it is one of the internet's best discussion sites."
27-09-2022 16:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Im a BM wrote:"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the Internet's best discussion sites."

If this is a genuinely held belief, it is truly delusional.

Your belief is delusional. It is an example of religious faith desperately needing to believe in the absurd.

Shouldn't you be making bets that can never be verified?

Im a BM wrote:I'll bet not even the half dozen who for some reason find it a tolerable place to communicate would agree that "it is one of the internet's best discussion sites."

I would point out that you have already given this site a barrage of spam insisting that potentially hundreds of lurkers visit daily to learn. Of course, you didn't use those exact words, but you relegate yourself to imagining new ways to micharacterize and malign this site.

Have you long since left this site on account of it being as bad as you force yourself to imagine? ... or are you still here, finding it a great place to learn from the free and open communication?

(Yes, this is precisely the easy and straightforward question that it appears to be)

27-09-2022 18:33
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

.



Definition of delusional:

For someone familiar with the website to say,

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the Internet's best discussion sites."

If this is a genuinely held belief, it is truly delusional.

It is an example of religious faith desperately needing to believe in the absurd.

I'll bet not even the half dozen who for some reason find it a tolerable place to communicate would agree that "it is one of the internet's best discussion sites."[/quote]

Spot on. I'm pretty much only here to troll the troll.
27-09-2022 20:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

.



Definition of delusional:

For someone familiar with the website to say,

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the Internet's best discussion sites."

If this is a genuinely held belief, it is truly delusional.

It is an example of religious faith desperately needing to believe in the absurd.

I'll bet not even the half dozen who for some reason find it a tolerable place to communicate would agree that "it is one of the internet's best discussion sites."[/quote]
Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-09-2022 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

.



Definition of delusional:

For someone familiar with the website to say,

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the Internet's best discussion sites."

If this is a genuinely held belief, it is truly delusional.

It is an example of religious faith desperately needing to believe in the absurd.

I'll bet not even the half dozen who for some reason find it a tolerable place to communicate would agree that "it is one of the internet's best discussion sites."


Spot on. I'm pretty much only here to troll the troll.[/quote]
Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-09-2022 21:52
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:

Trolling.


Misplaced quote, troll.
28-09-2022 05:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Trolling.


Misplaced quote, troll.

Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2022 05:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Trolling.
Misplaced quote, troll.

Trolling.

I found Robert Wagner's picture online. You don't suppose he's going to claim that I "dox'ed" him, do you?

28-09-2022 09:37
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Trolling.
Misplaced quote, troll.

Trolling.

I found Robert Wagner's picture online. You don't suppose he's going to claim that I "dox'ed" him, do you?



So sweet, the little troll did a little photoshopping on a self-portrait.
28-09-2022 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Robert Wagner wrote:So sweet, the little troll did a little photoshopping on a self-portrait.

What are you talking about? I lifted your profile pic off your Facebook account.



Don't be shy. I think you captured your good side rather well.
Edited on 28-09-2022 16:00
28-09-2022 18:25
James_
★★★★☆
(1150)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Trolling.


Misplaced quote, troll.



I tried discussing science in a science forum. The people who own the forum even have an award winning podcast. It was like posting in here. An example is that the forum moderators and forum members who have "god" status (next post will show this) do not understand what g = GM/r^2 means. This is because the volume of a sphere is V = 4/3πr^3. Then if you consider its density then you can consider its gravity.
Attached image:


Edited on 28-09-2022 18:38
28-09-2022 18:28
James_
★★★★☆
(1150)
And what will make people think science is either a joke or a religion. They sound like Christians, just have faith. And Robert, you've probably seen my website. It does raise a question I asked in the science forum. When scientists observe something they do not understand, isn't it a scientist's job to understand their observations? The answer I got in the science forum is that if scientists said that further evaluation or more research is needed then they'll be out of a job.
With these guys they do not accept that the tropopause is an actual barrier such as a greenhouse has. A part of the research that I am pursuing will explain why this is. When warm water vapor (an anvil cloud for example) cannot enter into the tropopause and gasses in the stratosphere such as ozone, O2, O, CH4, etc. can not cool enough to enter the tropopause, why?
That is what demonstrates that the tropopause is a physical barrier. If it wasn't a physical barrier then warm flows to cold and is not repelled by cold, right? Why the cold air inversion? What scientists should be striving to understand and with me, I'm not a scientist, I'm just bored.

p.s., when an anvil cloud cannot leave the troposphere, that heat is "trapped" in the troposphere. Radiative cooling is much less efficient than convection cooling is when there is atmospheric forcing which is a column of warm air (a thermal) which flows up into the stratosphere next to a jet stream. Then cooler air in the stratosphere drops down into the troposphere.
Attached image:


Edited on 28-09-2022 18:45
28-09-2022 21:02
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
James_ wrote:
And what will make people think science is either a joke or a religion. They sound like Christians, just have faith. And Robert, you've probably seen my website. It does raise a question I asked in the science forum. When scientists observe something they do not understand, isn't it a scientist's job to understand their observations? The answer I got in the science forum is that if scientists said that further evaluation or more research is needed then they'll be out of a job.
With these guys they do not accept that the tropopause is an actual barrier such as a greenhouse has. A part of the research that I am pursuing will explain why this is. When warm water vapor (an anvil cloud for example) cannot enter into the tropopause and gasses in the stratosphere such as ozone, O2, O, CH4, etc. can not cool enough to enter the tropopause, why?
That is what demonstrates that the tropopause is a physical barrier. If it wasn't a physical barrier then warm flows to cold and is not repelled by cold, right? Why the cold air inversion? What scientists should be striving to understand and with me, I'm not a scientist, I'm just bored.

p.s., when an anvil cloud cannot leave the troposphere, that heat is "trapped" in the troposphere. Radiative cooling is much less efficient than convection cooling is when there is atmospheric forcing which is a column of warm air (a thermal) which flows up into the stratosphere next to a jet stream. Then cooler air in the stratosphere drops down into the troposphere.


The tropopause is not a barrier.
29-09-2022 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Trolling.
Misplaced quote, troll.

Trolling.

I found Robert Wagner's picture online. You don't suppose he's going to claim that I "dox'ed" him, do you?



So sweet, the little troll did a little photoshopping on a self-portrait.


LIF. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-09-2022 00:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
James_ wrote:
And what will make people think science is either a joke or a religion.

Science is neither a joke nor a religion.
James_ wrote:
They sound like Christians, just have faith.

Science does not require faith.
James_ wrote:
And Robert, you've probably seen my website. It does raise a question I asked in the science forum. When scientists observe something they do not understand, isn't it a scientist's job to understand their observations?

No.
James_ wrote:
The answer I got in the science forum is that if scientists said that further evaluation or more research is needed then they'll be out of a job.

Science isn't a job. Science isn't even a scientist.
James_ wrote:
With these guys they do not accept that the tropopause is an actual barrier such as a greenhouse has.

There is no barrier.
James_ wrote:
A part of the research that I am pursuing will explain why this is. When warm water vapor (an anvil cloud for example) cannot enter into the tropopause

It can and it does.
James_ wrote:
and gasses in the stratosphere such as ozone, O2, O, CH4, etc. can not cool enough to enter the tropopause, why?

I will call this Argument 1.
James_ wrote:
That is what demonstrates that the tropopause is a physical barrier.

It isn't.
James_ wrote:
If it wasn't a physical barrier then warm flows to cold and is not repelled by cold, right?

Warm isn't a flow.
James_ wrote:
Why the cold air inversion?

Buzzword fallacy. Meaningless question.
James_ wrote:
What scientists should be striving to understand and with me, I'm not a scientist, I'm just bored.

I can tell.
James_ wrote:
p.s., when an anvil cloud cannot leave the troposphere, that heat is "trapped" in the troposphere.

A cloud is not heat. The 'anvil' of a thunderstorm routinely enters into the stratosphere.
James_ wrote:
Radiative cooling is much less efficient than convection cooling

There is no 'efficiency' here.
James_ wrote:
is when there is atmospheric forcing

No such thing.
James_ wrote:
which is a column of warm air (a thermal) which flows up into the stratosphere next to a jet stream.

Not a force.
James_ wrote:
Then cooler air in the stratosphere drops down into the troposphere.

I will call this Argument 2. Paradox. Irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2022 19:34
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
And what will make people think science is either a joke or a religion.

Science is neither a joke nor a religion.
James_ wrote:
They sound like Christians, just have faith.

Science does not require faith.
James_ wrote:
And Robert, you've probably seen my website. It does raise a question I asked in the science forum. When scientists observe something they do not understand, isn't it a scientist's job to understand their observations?

No.
James_ wrote:
The answer I got in the science forum is that if scientists said that further evaluation or more research is needed then they'll be out of a job.

Science isn't a job. Science isn't even a scientist.
James_ wrote:
With these guys they do not accept that the tropopause is an actual barrier such as a greenhouse has.

There is no barrier.
James_ wrote:
A part of the research that I am pursuing will explain why this is. When warm water vapor (an anvil cloud for example) cannot enter into the tropopause

It can and it does.
James_ wrote:
and gasses in the stratosphere such as ozone, O2, O, CH4, etc. can not cool enough to enter the tropopause, why?

I will call this Argument 1.
James_ wrote:
That is what demonstrates that the tropopause is a physical barrier.

It isn't.
James_ wrote:
If it wasn't a physical barrier then warm flows to cold and is not repelled by cold, right?

Warm isn't a flow.
James_ wrote:
Why the cold air inversion?

Buzzword fallacy. Meaningless question.
James_ wrote:
What scientists should be striving to understand and with me, I'm not a scientist, I'm just bored.

I can tell.
James_ wrote:
p.s., when an anvil cloud cannot leave the troposphere, that heat is "trapped" in the troposphere.

A cloud is not heat. The 'anvil' of a thunderstorm routinely enters into the stratosphere.
James_ wrote:
Radiative cooling is much less efficient than convection cooling

There is no 'efficiency' here.
James_ wrote:
is when there is atmospheric forcing

No such thing.
James_ wrote:
which is a column of warm air (a thermal) which flows up into the stratosphere next to a jet stream.

Not a force.
James_ wrote:
Then cooler air in the stratosphere drops down into the troposphere.

I will call this Argument 2. Paradox. Irrational.


scientific method

By
Gavin WrightTréa Lavery, Editorial Assistant
What is the scientific method?
The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The principals of the scientific method can be applied in many areas, including scientific research, business and technology.

Steps of the scientific method
The scientific method uses a series of steps to establish facts or create knowledge. The overall process is well established, but the specifics of each step may change depending on what is being examined and who is performing it. The scientific method can only answer questions that can be proven or disproven through testing.

Make an observation or ask a question. The first step is to observe something that you would like to learn about or ask a question that you would like answered. These can be specific or general. Some examples would be "I observe that our total available network bandwidth drops at noon every weekday" or "How can we increase our website registration numbers?" Taking the time to establish a well-defined question will help you in later steps.

Gather background information. This involves doing research into what is already known about the topic. This can also involve finding if anyone has already asked the same question.

Create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an explanation for the observation or question. If proven later, it can become a fact. Some examples would be "Our employees watching online videos during lunch is using our internet bandwidth" or "Our website visitors don't see our registration form."

Create a prediction and perform a test. Create a testable prediction based on the hypothesis. The test should establish a noticeable change that can be measured or observed using empirical analysis. It is also important to control for other variables during the test. Some examples would be "If we block video-sharing sites, our available bandwidth will not go down significantly during lunch" or "If we make our registration box bigger, a greater percentage of visitors will register for our website than before the change."

Analyze the results and draw a conclusion. Use the metrics established before the test see if the results match the prediction. For example, "After blocking video-sharing sites, our bandwidth utilization only went down by 10% from before; this is not enough of a change to be the primary cause of the network congestion" or "After increasing the size of the registration box, the percent of sign-ups went from 2% of total page views to 5%, showing that making the box larger results in more registrations."

Share the conclusion or decide what question to ask next: Document the results of your experiment. By sharing the results with others, you also increase the total body of knowledge available. Your experiment may have also led to other questions, or if your hypothesis is disproven you may need to create a new one and test that. For example, "Because user activity is not the cause of excessive bandwidth use, we now suspect that an automated process is running at noon every day."

scientific methodTECHTARGET
Diagram illustrating using the scientific method to confirm a hypothesis
Using the scientific method in technology and computers
The scientific method is incredibly valuable in technology and related fields. It is obviously used in research and development, but it is also useful in day-to-day operations. Because almost everything can be quantified, testing hypotheses can be easy.

Most modern computer systems are complicated and difficult to troubleshoot. Using the scientific method of hypothesis and testing can greatly simplify the process of tracking down errors and it can help find areas of improvement. It can also help when you evaluate new technologies before implementation.

Using the scientific method in business
Many business processes benefit when using the scientific method. Shifting business landscapes and complex business relationships can make behaviors hard to predict or act counter to previous history. Instead of using gut feelings or previous experience, a scientific approach can help businesses grow. Big data initiative can make business information more available and easier to test with.

The scientific method can be applied in many areas. Customer satisfaction and retention numbers can be analyzed and tested upon. Profitability and finance numbers can be analyzed to form new conclusions. Making predictions on changing business practices and checking the results will help to identify and measure success or failure of the initiatives.

scientific method in businessTECHTARGET
Using the scientific method in business
Common pitfalls in using the scientific method
The scientific method is a powerful tool. Like any tool, though, if it is misused it can cause more damage than good.

The scientific method can only be used for testable phenomenon. This is known as falsifiability. While much in nature can be tested and measured, some areas of human experience are beyond objective observation.

Both proving and disproving the hypothesis are equally valid outcomes of testing. It is possible to ignore the outcome or inject bias to skew the results of a test in a way that will fit the hypothesis. Data in opposition to the hypothesis should not be discounted.

It is important to control for other variables and influences during testing to not skew the results. While difficult, not accounting for these could produce invalid data. For example, testing bandwidth during a holiday or measuring registrations during a sale event may introduce other factors that influence the outcome.

Another common pitfall is mixing correlation with causation. While two data points may seem to be connected, it is not necessarily true that once is directly influenced by the other. For example, an ice cream stand in town sees drops in business on the hottest days. While the data may look like the hotter the weather, the less people want ice cream, the reality is that more people are going to the beach on those days and less are in town.

History of the scientific method
The discovery of the scientific method is not credited to any single person, but there are a few notable figures who contributed to its development.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle is considered to be one of the earliest proponents of logic and cycles of observation and deduction in recorded history. Ibn al-Haytham, a mathematician, established stringent testing methodologies in pursuit of facts and truth, and he recorded his findings.

During the Renaissance, many thinkers and scientists continued developing rational methods of establishing facts. Sir Francis Bacon emphasized the importance of inductive reasoning. Sir Isaac Newton relied on both inductive and deductive reasoning to explain the results of his experiments, and Galileo Galilei emphasized the idea that results should be repeatable.

Other well-known contributors to the scientific method include Karl Popper, who introduced the concept of falsifiability, and Charles Darwin, who is known for using multiple communication channels to share his conclusions.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
01-10-2022 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
scientific method

By
Gavin WrightTréa Lavery, Editorial Assistant
What is the scientific method?

Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
Swan wrote:
The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The principals of the scientific method can be applied in many areas, including scientific research, business and technology.
...deleted Mantra 20e2...

Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 01-10-2022 20:49
01-10-2022 20:55
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.


Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.
01-10-2022 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.


Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 01-10-2022 21:05
01-10-2022 22:03
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.


Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.


Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.
01-10-2022 22:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.


Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.


Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.
Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2022 23:07
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
scientific method

By
Gavin WrightTréa Lavery, Editorial Assistant
What is the scientific method?

Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
Swan wrote:
The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The principals of the scientific method can be applied in many areas, including scientific research, business and technology.
...deleted Mantra 20e2...

Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.


No one on Earth cares if you live or die, or what you babble here.

No exceptions.

PS You responded to something that I neither wrote nor read, as you always do, because you need to entertain yourself somehow. You were nothing, are nothing and have decided to never be anything, except my toy that is.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
02-10-2022 00:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Definition of a Troll:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Aesop's Fables - The Troll Who Cried Dead Barrier Reef804-09-2022 00:00
Ye Bible Troll Speaketh4124-04-2022 20:24
Go Fund Me pitch for troll-infested website vermin eradication program manual6022-04-2022 16:56
Safe Friends of "sealover" - Troll-free Library Networking. Join the List.622-03-2022 05:21
The Definition of an Average Climate6403-08-2020 22:53
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact