Watching the Train Wreck in Slow Motion

Swan wrote:

Everyone is a terrorist to someone

At first we waited for the storm to blow over. My husband did not allow the swastika around the house or the new greeting or the new anthem to ever be heard. The pressure mounted and our lives were threatened by the Nazis.

From every house hung a swastika flag.

Xadoman wrote:
My Wif bag sits at 375 dollars. I bought with 15 dollars. More than 20x with this.

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
My Wif bag sits at 375 dollars. I bought with 15 dollars. More than 20x with this.

If you cash out you can buy a new tire for your unicycle

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness.

Xadoman wrote:
The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

Xadoman wrote:
My crypto portfolio is about 2500 dollars now.

Xadoman wrote:
I chase no shitcoins anymore.

Xadoman wrote:
I simply do not have time and willingness to do this.

Xadoman wrote:
In the future I am going to buy only Bitcoin. It was around 20k when we talked last time. Now it has made 5x being at 100k.

Xadoman wrote:
I wait for the next pull back and go in from there.

gfm7175 wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness.

Most coins were never anything to begin with (other than a scam for the executives to get rich off of the backs of FOMO suckers such as yourself).

Xadoman wrote:
The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

Safemoon was/is one such aforementioned scam.

Xadoman wrote:
My crypto portfolio is about 2500 dollars now.

This means nothing to me without additional info.

Xadoman wrote:
I chase no shitcoins anymore.

Have you learned your lesson from the scams that you fell for? Have you properly addressed your gambling addiction?

Xadoman wrote:
I simply do not have time and willingness to do this.

I'm thinking that you simply do not have money to do it. You've pissed it all away on your gambling addiction.

Xadoman wrote:
In the future I am going to buy only Bitcoin. It was around 20k when we talked last time. Now it has made 5x being at 100k.

The time to buy Bitcoin would've been in the past, in anticipation of a Trump election victory. Even immediately after Trump's election victory, Bitcoin was still just under 70k and still could've been bought for a small gain (if subsequently sold for a small gain). Now, Bitcoin is going to keep doing quite well for a while. The time to buy into it for a "__x gain" has now passed. You're too late. You "missed out".

Xadoman wrote:
I wait for the next pull back and go in from there.

You're going to be "waiting" for quite some time. Since Trump won the election, Bitcoin is now "safe from attack" for the time being.

The time to get into Bitcoin would've been some time BEFORE the "Trump bump". Now that the "Trump bump" has already occurred (and will continue to occur on a smaller scale), I don't foresee any "2x or 3x money" to be made on it anymore...

There will be a time in the near future when Bitcoin won't be "safe from attack" anymore (say, when a crypto-hating digital-dollar-loving Democrat is expected to win in 2028). That'll probably be your first "pull back" chance to "go in", but at that point, Bitcoin's existence will be at risk because of a control-hungry Democrat government that will have an agenda to ban all crypto while implementing a "digital dollar" system (central bank digital currency). It would be very risky to "go in" at that point.

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

You could safely say that anyone who bought it got mooned.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

You could safely say that anyone who bought it got mooned.

Anyone who bought Safemoon was the one who bent over.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

You could safely say that anyone who bought it got mooned.

Anyone who bought Safemoon was the one who bent over.

Ahhh, correct!
I will not assign you a bogus position. You did not buy Safemoon. Can we assume this is the position of Xadoman?

Im a BM wrote:
So, is science a PRODUCT or a PROCESS?

Im a BM wrote:
"Science is a set of falsifiable theories" - climate-debate.com troll consensus

Im a BM wrote:
According to this definition, science is a PRODUCT. A set of falsifiable theories.

Im a BM wrote:
There are some who engage in gibber babble about the so called "Scientific Method"

Im a BM wrote:
This method is a PROCESS, not a PRODUCT.

Im a BM wrote:
The "set of falsifiable theories" is the PRODUCT of the PROCESS of the so called "Scientific Method"

Im a BM wrote:
It's probably just a meaningless buzzword which DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Im a BM wrote:
But the scientific journals that published my so called scientific research were pretty insistent that I dedicated most of my papers' content to the PROCESS of science, and only presented the PRODUCT as a "conclusion".

Im a BM wrote:
It is not at all clear if the local trolls have ever heard about the "Scientific Method".

Im a BM wrote:
It's kind of important for this thing we call "science".

Im a BM wrote:
Outside of this website, I've never seen the concept of science so grossly oversimplified and distorted as to call it "a set of falsifiable theories".

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a dictionary, book, paper or magazine, so the "set of falsifiable theories" definition won't be published anywhere outside of this website.

Im a BM wrote:
Hey, "Board" of climate-debate.com!
Is there any need to cite a credible source for a definition of "science"?

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, the process of the so called "Scientific Method" has nothing at all to do with it.

Im a BM wrote:
"You don't even know what science is." - Into the Night and IBdaMann[/b]

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

But.... but Xadoman was told that his "investment" was 'safe' and would shoot up "10x, 20x, 50x" "to the moon"...... Poor Xadoman.

Im a BM wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Most coins have faded into nothingness. The Safemoon was rugged but it makes a slow comeback.

SEP 2023 marked Safemoon's loss of 93%.
DEC 2024 marked Safemoon's loss of 75% since SEP 2023.

All of these losses occurred safely and went to the moon.

But.... but Xadoman was told that his "investment" was 'safe' and would shoot up "10x, 20x, 50x" "to the moon"...... Poor Xadoman.

Actually, your Christmas poem WAS funny.

Indeed, you defied my (admittedly low) expectations for how clever and original you might be capable of being.

Kind of surprised you didn't just go for the throat with the most damning accusation of them all.

He's a Marxist word game fraud
Just watch him as he squirms
Calls buzzwords and gibber babble "science"
And WON'T EVER DEFINE HIS TERMS!

Im a BM wrote:Kind of surprised you didn't just go for the throat with the most damning accusation of them all.

He's a Marxist word game fraud
Just watch him as he squirms
Calls buzzwords and gibber babble "science"
And WON'T EVER DEFINE HIS TERMS!

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Kind of surprised you didn't just go for the throat with the most damning accusation of them all.

He's a Marxist word game fraud
Just watch him as he squirms
Calls buzzwords and gibber babble "science"
And WON'T EVER DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He worries there is Global Warming,
and alkalinity depletion.
He claims to see the distant past
and coral reef extinction.

He will not answer questions or
define the terms he uses
He preaches his religion while
spamming the threads he abuses

Having nary a follower
leaves his dreams forever haunted
by the absence of the library that
was all he ever wanted

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Kind of surprised you didn't just go for the throat with the most damning accusation of them all.

He's a Marxist word game fraud
Just watch him as he squirms
Calls buzzwords and gibber babble "science"
And WON'T EVER DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He worries there is Global Warming,
and alkalinity depletion.
He claims to see the distant past
and coral reef extinction.

He will not answer questions or
define the terms he uses
He preaches his religion while
spamming the threads he abuses

Having nary a follower
leaves his dreams forever haunted
by the absence of the library that
was all he ever wanted

Nice extension!

Im a BM wrote:

He worries there is Global Warming,
and alkalinity depletion.
He claims to see the distant past
and coral reef extinction.

He will not answer questions or
define the terms he uses
He preaches his religion while
spamming the threads he abuses

Having nary a follower
leaves his dreams forever haunted
by the absence of the library that
was all he ever wanted

He needed the world's most highly respected scientists to let him be part of the club.

Im a BM wrote: But they called "BOOOLSCHITT" on him!

Im a BM wrote: What can he do now but go whimper and lick his wounds?

Im a BM wrote: Seeing how they have taken his research to the next level,

Im a BM wrote: But its an empty joy.

Im a BM wrote: Throwing around big words like "hydronium", and hoping nobody else knows what they mean.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

He worries there is Global Warming,
and alkalinity depletion.
He claims to see the distant past
and coral reef extinction.

He will not answer questions or
define the terms he uses
He preaches his religion while
spamming the threads he abuses

Having nary a follower
leaves his dreams forever haunted
by the absence of the library that
was all he ever wanted

He needed the world's most highly respected scientists to let him be part of the club.

When did global respect levels become part of the requirement list?

Im a BM wrote: But they called "BOOOLSCHITT" on him!

It's correctly spelled "booooolsch't".

Im a BM wrote: What can he do now but go whimper and lick his wounds?

... or have a beer.

Im a BM wrote: Seeing how they have taken his research to the next level,

Did you get any new weapons for leveling-up?

Im a BM wrote: But its an empty joy.

Without the library, it can't help but be hollow.

Im a BM wrote: Throwing around big words like "hydronium", and hoping nobody else knows what they mean.

Nope. The undefined buzzword list for you is as follows:

"global climate"
"climate change"
"organic carbon"
"sea level rise"
"alkalinity depletion"

... I confess, I'm drawing a blank for the others at the moment. I'll post them when I recall them.

Im a BM wrote:
FIRE BREATHING DRAGON - Phosphorus based hypothesis

Mary F, a genius microbiologist, offered a phosphorus based hypothesis for the origin of the "fire breathing dragon" myth.

Certainly with every belch, every cow creates the physical conditions ideal for combustion with just a little activation.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane comes into contact with 21% oxygen, with potentially explosive results.

Im a BM wrote:
Mary wasn't convinced that there enough naturally occurring sparks ever going to be in the vicinity of the cow's exhalation.

Im a BM wrote:
But if the cow were to inadvertently eat something unusually rich in phosphorus, the potential for explosion increases.

Im a BM wrote:
Under the extreme low oxygen, chemically reducing conditions in a cow's gut, phosphate reducing bacteria can get in on the feeding frenzy.

Im a BM wrote:
They can produce a gaseous form of reduced phosphorus.

Im a BM wrote:
These guys make a gas that can come into contact with oxygen and spontaneously combust, setting off the methane. maybe. Mary wasn't there to see it.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
FIRE BREATHING DRAGON - Phosphorus based hypothesis

Mary F, a genius microbiologist, offered a phosphorus based hypothesis for the origin of the "fire breathing dragon" myth.

Certainly with every belch, every cow creates the physical conditions ideal for combustion with just a little activation.

So you want to light cows on fire. You are truly weird.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane comes into contact with 21% oxygen, with potentially explosive results.

Fire isn't an explosion, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Mary wasn't convinced that there enough naturally occurring sparks ever going to be in the vicinity of the cow's exhalation.

Who's 'Mary'??

Im a BM wrote:
But if the cow were to inadvertently eat something unusually rich in phosphorus, the potential for explosion increases.

Cows don't eat phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
Under the extreme low oxygen, chemically reducing conditions in a cow's gut, phosphate reducing bacteria can get in on the feeding frenzy.

Phosphate is not phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
They can produce a gaseous form of reduced phosphorus.

You can't reduce phosphorous. A cow is not above the boiling point, much less than the melting point of phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
These guys make a gas that can come into contact with oxygen and spontaneously combust, setting off the methane. maybe. Mary wasn't there to see it.

So you dream of exploding cows. Truly weird.

Im a BM wrote:
Phosphine, PH3, IS a "chemical", even by the rigid and exacting standards of Into the Night.

Phosphine, a CHEMICAL, (so we are allowed to include it in discussion) is phosphorus in HIGHLY reduced, gaseous, chemical form.

Yup, phosphine is a colorless, flammable, and extremely toxic gas with bad garlic like stank. It's not just slightly flammable. It doesn't even need a SPARK.

Phosphine spontaneously combusts when it contacts 21% oxygen.

And don't try to pull the "phosphine is not a chemical" crap, Mr. Chemistry Clown.

You might have your own idea what it means for phosphorus to be "reduced".

Indeed, in the vast majority of science discussion involving phosphorus in different oxidation states make the big distinction between arsenic(III) and arsenic(V).

LEARN TO READ! "Mary" was identified at the very beginning of the post.

Maybe she doesn't exist because "there is no such thing as microbiology".

Compared to phosphine, arsenic(III) (e.g. sodium arsenite, Na3PO3), and arsenic(V) (e.g. sodium arsenate, Na3PO4), As(III) and As(V) are BOTH "oxidized", compared to phosphine, "arsenic zero". As reduced as it gets.

We just want to protect the cows from the hazards of belching methane. Maybe protect the atmosphere while we're at it.

If my dream were of exploding cows, I would recommend that saboteurs put sodium phosphate, lots of it, into the cattle feed.

Damn, they might have to find the right culture of phosphate reducers though. Phosphine isn't what most of them make. Wait, it could still work. Yes, there are OTHER spontaneously combusting reduced phosphorus gases that some of them make.

Phosphine IS a chemical, you scientifically illiterate Chemistry Clown!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
FIRE BREATHING DRAGON - Phosphorus based hypothesis

Mary F, a genius microbiologist, offered a phosphorus based hypothesis for the origin of the "fire breathing dragon" myth.

Certainly with every belch, every cow creates the physical conditions ideal for combustion with just a little activation.

So you want to light cows on fire. You are truly weird.

Im a BM wrote:
Methane comes into contact with 21% oxygen, with potentially explosive results.

Fire isn't an explosion, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Mary wasn't convinced that there enough naturally occurring sparks ever going to be in the vicinity of the cow's exhalation.

Who's 'Mary'??

Im a BM wrote:
But if the cow were to inadvertently eat something unusually rich in phosphorus, the potential for explosion increases.

Cows don't eat phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
Under the extreme low oxygen, chemically reducing conditions in a cow's gut, phosphate reducing bacteria can get in on the feeding frenzy.

Phosphate is not phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
They can produce a gaseous form of reduced phosphorus.

You can't reduce phosphorous. A cow is not above the boiling point, much less than the melting point of phosphorous.

Im a BM wrote:
These guys make a gas that can come into contact with oxygen and spontaneously combust, setting off the methane. maybe. Mary wasn't there to see it.

So you dream of exploding cows. Truly weird.

gfm7175 wrote:
Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic can make a gas like this too, but it isn't as explosive as phosphine.

Im a BM wrote:
Arsenic can make a gas like this too, but it isn't as explosive as phosphine.

Im a BM wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Stop spamming.

You have explicitly told me that I don't know what a "chemical" is.

What is the basis for your assertion?

Of course, it is VERY plausible that a PhD with widely cited chemistry research publications doesn't even know what a chemical is.

I should just concede defeat. You guys are too smart for me.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Stop spamming.

You have explicitly told me that I don't know what a "chemical" is.

What is the basis for your assertion?

Of course, it is VERY plausible that a PhD with widely cited chemistry research publications doesn't even know what a chemical is.

I should just concede defeat. You guys are too smart for me.

Science is not a degree or title. Chemistry is not a degree or title. Neither is a degree, title, magazine, paper, book, website, search engine, pamphlet, journal, government agency, college, or university.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN explicitly claims that carbonate ions DON'T EXIST as something that can act as a pH buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
INCORRECTLY asserts that carbonate ion is "not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
Can't seem to figure out that carbonate ion is REAL and is a MAJOR source of pH buffering capacity in sea water. Pity.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
ITN explicitly claims that carbonate ions DON'T EXIST as something that can act as a pH buffer.

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
INCORRECTLY asserts that carbonate ion is "not a chemical".

Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Can't seem to figure out that carbonate ion is REAL and is a MAJOR source of pH buffering capacity in sea water. Pity.

Carbonate is not a chemical. pH buffering is not a chemical. Buzzword fallacies.

Im a BM wrote:
"pH buffering is not a chemical." - Into the Night

It must be horrible to be tormented like that by the voices in your head.

That cruel voice that keeps saying "pH buffering IS a chemical!"

Take a deep breath and try to calm down.

It isn't real. You're just having another psychotic episode and it will be over pretty soon. Just try to relax. Breathe. Just breathe.

Okay, you don't have to be afraid. NOBODY is trying to tell you that pH buffering is a chemical. None of us would ever do that to you. We love you.

Oh God, this just breaks my heart to see you like this.

And you're still hearing the voice about the carbonate thing too, right?

I'm not sure I agree with the therapist, though.

I don't think its really helping you to keep posting messages in response to the voices in your head.

It seemed to help at first.

When that horrible voice kept telling you, "You CAN create energy out of nothing because you ARE a nothing.", it really WAS good for you to keep writing "you cannot create energy out of nothing." over and over and over and over.

But you have to admit that the episodes have escalated lately, right?

I don't think that posting rebuttals to the arguments made by the voices in your head is working any more.

Hey, I'm on YOUR side and I'm trying to help you.

NOBODY here is taking sides against you with that evil voice in your head telling you "pH buffering is a CHEMICAL, dumbass!"

We love you and we ALL agree with you that pH buffering is not a chemical.

Please calm down. You're scaring everybody.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"pH buffering is not a chemical." - Into the Night

It must be horrible to be tormented like that by the voices in your head.

That cruel voice that keeps saying "pH buffering IS a chemical!"

Take a deep breath and try to calm down.

It isn't real. You're just having another psychotic episode and it will be over pretty soon. Just try to relax. Breathe. Just breathe.

Okay, you don't have to be afraid. NOBODY is trying to tell you that pH buffering is a chemical. None of us would ever do that to you. We love you.

Oh God, this just breaks my heart to see you like this.

And you're still hearing the voice about the carbonate thing too, right?

I'm not sure I agree with the therapist, though.

I don't think its really helping you to keep posting messages in response to the voices in your head.

It seemed to help at first.

When that horrible voice kept telling you, "You CAN create energy out of nothing because you ARE a nothing.", it really WAS good for you to keep writing "you cannot create energy out of nothing." over and over and over and over.

But you have to admit that the episodes have escalated lately, right?

I don't think that posting rebuttals to the arguments made by the voices in your head is working any more.

Hey, I'm on YOUR side and I'm trying to help you.

NOBODY here is taking sides against you with that evil voice in your head telling you "pH buffering is a CHEMICAL, dumbass!"

We love you and we ALL agree with you that pH buffering is not a chemical.

Please calm down. You're scaring everybody.

Don't try to deny your own posts, moron.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

Im a BM wrote:
Don Quixote keeps going after those chemical wind mill "giants"...

The imaginary giants' entire argument is "X is a CHEMICAL".

So, it is a comprehensive rebuttal to that entire argument to simply assert that "X is NOT a chemical."

Indeed, it displays supreme skill as a chemist to astutely observe that "X is not a chemical"

And if that single sentence can just be repeated enough times, that is all that ever needs to be said and they could write the entire chapter of the chemistry textbook by just quoting the SCIENTIFIC GENIUS of Into the Night.

Just say "no" when you don't like what it says.

Declare the words to be meaningless.

You cannot discuss SCIENCE with BUZZWORDS.

So, just SHUT UP, EVERYONE who would dare to write a sentence that includes a "buzzword".

And STOP insisting that EVERYTHING is a CHEMICAL

Because that FORCES the reply to be repeated over and over and over and over

not a chemical not a chemical not a chemical not a chemical

STOP SPAMMING

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Don Quixote keeps going after those chemical wind mill "giants"...

The imaginary giants' entire argument is "X is a CHEMICAL".

So, it is a comprehensive rebuttal to that entire argument to simply assert that "X is NOT a chemical."

Indeed, it displays supreme skill as a chemist to astutely observe that "X is not a chemical"

And if that single sentence can just be repeated enough times, that is all that ever needs to be said and they could write the entire chapter of the chemistry textbook by just quoting the SCIENTIFIC GENIUS of Into the Night.

Just say "no" when you don't like what it says.

Declare the words to be meaningless.

You cannot discuss SCIENCE with BUZZWORDS.

So, just SHUT UP, EVERYONE who would dare to write a sentence that includes a "buzzword".

And STOP insisting that EVERYTHING is a CHEMICAL

Because that FORCES the reply to be repeated over and over and over and over

not a chemical not a chemical not a chemical not a chemical

STOP SPAMMING

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.