If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Ah, I'm glad you bring up Dark Matter. Matter that must exist, but doesn't according to all our methods of observation.
In a post full of half truths and non truths, this one takes the cake. Science knows of and has proven the existance of many things that we cannot directly observe. Virtual particles are a good example, they can never be observed directly but their existance and nature is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Actually of course, we only and always observe everything indirectly. All that our brain can percieve "directly" is the electrical impulses that travel along our nerves. Everthing that we hear, taste, smell, see or feel is by indirect observation. The world we experience is actually created within our brains, and we see feel hear touch and feel only a small part of the actual reality all around us.
Of course the world outside our heads does exist, and we can be sure of it beyond any reasonable doubt as we all are, and with good reason. But that doesn't change the fact that we can never observe it directly.
To suggest that because we can only observe some phenomenon indirectly we therefore cannot know it exists, is total nonsense.
Of course most of the rest of his post is nonsense as well, but he piles nonsense upon nonsense and if you refute all his nonsensicalities he will bring more in and if you refute every bit of nonsense he brings up until there is no bit of nonsense left to refute, he just starts again from the beginning, which by then he has forgotten.
BUT, to actually get back to the thread topic, seeing all that stuff that Paul has written, and comparing his qualification with actual scientists and their observations of actually existing global warming, who are you going to bet on?
If, in other words, on the one hand we have a climate scientist who publishes in peer reviewed journals, and tells you that humanity is currently causing global warming. On the other hand Paul Bonham, who believes in psychic woo and tells you it ain't so. Who will you bet is right?
If you believe Paul please send me an email, because I can give you a great deal on a blue bridge. A little rusty but she still runs great...
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Wednesday, 1st September, 2010, 12:12 AM.
... i just told you what love is, and how it is impossible for it to have any power whatsoever, and thinking anything else is nothing short of complete delusion, you should check yourself into a mental hospital and everyone else who believes that should go in with you.
Maybe next time try being a bit more specific, all the forces of the universe? matter and energy make up our universe, what do you mean by forces(energy could be considered a force)?
From a very easy to find source:
"The fundamental forces (or fundamental interactions) of physics are the ways that individual particles interact with each other. It turns out that for every single interaction that we've observed take place in the universe, they can be broken down to be described by only four (well, generally four - more on that later) types of interactions:
Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered."
I'd rather believe some form of God created all the forces of the universe then love(even though both are obviously false). That is how deplorable I feel your position is...
This is very interesting. You'd RATHER BELIEVE.... that says quite a lot right there. Perhaps you'd RATHER BELIEVE in AGW, because somehow it just sits right with you?
...since you kept on telling me to do research I did and I found quite a bit of contradictory evidence(who would have expected that, everyone besides Paul Bonham).
This is what I found:
"Like all human experiences, the NDE...blah blah blah...Again proving how logic and reasoning often fall short when things get emotional and people start being irrational.
NDE? I didn't claim any proof of anything having to do with NDE. My claim was that there is proof of REINCARNATION due to transcripts of hypnosis sessions, and later research showing that names and events mentioned match up with historical records that the person hypnotized could have had no knowledge of.
Of course, you and others are free to claim some type of collusion or "cheating". Interesting, that. The very same claim made against climate scientists!!! OMG!!!! What comes around goes around.
Penn and Teller also have a couple episodes on the bullshit of physics and ESP, i implore you to check it out and realize the falsehood of your current beliefs.
I love Penn and Teller, and I've seen many of their Bullshit episodes. Well, Adam, sorry to do this, but here's something that will make you wish you'd never brought up Penn and Teller:
"Both (Sharon) Begley and (Penn) Jillette were participants at James Randi's gathering of skeptics, The Amazing Meeting 6, in Las Vegas last month. In her blog post "Penn & Teller, and Believing in Dumb Things," this is how Begley describes what happened:
Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn's basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.
Now, Penn & Teller’s terrific “Bull****,” now beginning its sixth season on Showtime, has debunked psychics such as John Edward, feng shui, acupuncture and other forms of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore. (Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming.) Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."
How do you know that space is empty? Lawrence Krauss has a lecture talking about dark matter, maybe the metal ball is full of dark matter, just like space which apparently has massive gaps of nothingness but it is actually full of dark matter.
Ah, I'm glad you bring up Dark Matter. Matter that must exist, but doesn't according to all our methods of observation. I wonder if you really did read Sylvia's book, because she writes very specifically that the "other side" isn't in outer space somewhere, it's right here occupying the same space as Earth (and every other civilized planet in the universe has it's own other side, similarly configured). The components of the other side -- buildings, plants, animals, us -- are as physically real once you are there as everything is here on this side. The problem is, everything on the other side is vibrating at such a high frequency that it is all undetectable by our current means of observation.
Hmmmm.... could it be that the other side is the Dark Matter we seek?
Adam, you will recall that I specifically said that what I believe in, i.e. Syvia's teachings, require some faith. Therefore I'm not posting here to "prove" it in any way. I have stated that reincarnation, the central tenet of Sylvia's teachings, is provable, and the proof is available to anyone who wants to find it. However, I'm not Paul Beckwith, who started this thread to prove AGW theories to doubters. That is, I'm not compelled to prove reincarnation. For anyone wanting to prove it to themselves, do your own research.
The only reason I am posting here at all is because you broadcast your anti-faith pro-science agenda at the bottom of every message you post, and I wrote that it was amusing, to which you took exception. In the ensuing discourse, I have proved that you are a fraud who considers himself open-minded and able to make purely logical judgments free of any bias whatsoever, making those judgments based on fact. Yeah, you and Penn and Teller, you make a great threesome!
And here's one final link for you regarding the drug Ketamine and NDE experiences:
"In this article I will consider more speculative suggestions that the brain can act as a transceiver, converting energy fields beyond the brain into features of the mind, as a television converts waves in the air into sound and vision. Advances in quantum physics suggest that certain drugs, and the conditions which produce NDE's, may 'retune' the brain to provide access to certain fields and 'broadcasts' which are usually inaccessible. This retuning is said to open doors to realms which are always there, rather than actually producing those realms, just as the broadcast of one channel continues when we change channels."
So you see, your vaunted proof that NDE's don't mean anything is itself subject to bias. Who cares if it's biological? If it tunes us into a reality that is beyond this mere physical reality, it doesn't matter how we get there. What you have to prove (in order to prove NDE's don't mean anything) is that the reality that is beyond this reality doesn't really exist.
And as Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Good luck with alllll that!"
Only a union boss would seriously believe business can afford to create a few hundred thousand jobs to produce the same amount of product.
I have never held the title of "Union Boss", nor was I ever in a position to boss any of my union's members around. Gary's paranoid streak is showing again.
It would be better to create a few hundred thousand union jobs via efficiency and the production of clean energy. But of course only a solution that destroys union jobs would work for Gary.
Only a union boss would seriously believe business can afford to create a few hundred thousand jobs to produce the same amount of product.
I wouldn't give up a single union job (or any other job) for the climate change myth.
You're the one who seems to buy into that "science" so it's reasonable to ask what price is acceptable to you.
Well, not eveything is coming up rose for the warming cartel. Not all the press is sympathetic.
What a revalation!!!! Amazing!!!!!! Some of the press are on the side of the deniers!!!!!!! Yes, that's right, you read it here first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we could clear up the pollution problems here in Canada with the loss of a mere 30,000 union jobs would you be agreeable? A lot of industry could relocate elsewhere and ship product to Canada. That would be the problem of their government to put a stop to pollution iin those nations if they felt the need to do so.
It would be better to create a few hundred thousand union jobs via efficiency and the production of clean energy. But of course only a solution that destroys union jobs would work for Gary.
The article I have linked is from Britain. A nation with a highly paid workforce.
Well, no one, least of all me, claims that scientists don't make mistakes. But scientists also have ways, unlike the press, of correcting their mistakes.
In the incident misrepresented by the propaganda piece Gary linked to, it was the scientists themselves that corrected erroneous information. Unlike Gorry, scientists will admit to their mistakes.
For a factual account of the report Gerry fibs about, see this link. I doubt that gury will ever read it.
Last edited by Ed Seedhouse; Tuesday, 31st August, 2010, 10:01 PM.
If we could clear up the pollution problems here in Canada with the loss of a mere 30,000 union jobs would you be agreeable? A lot of industry could relocate elsewhere and ship product to Canada. That would be the problem of their government to put a stop to pollution iin those nations if they felt the need to do so.
The article I have linked is from Britain. A nation with a highly paid workforce.
Ok, so the IPCC has extremely low credibility because of their idiotic mistakes, and outright lies.
ok, but there is actually a video above the article featuring a climate experts based in Washington talking about the reality of global warming and how it's all connected and the reasons why we need to find a solution to this problem(also gives chances of 19/20 that it is AGW). So there is a corrupted group that made exaggerations, go right ahead and bust them, but the truth is still out there. Climate experts who are independent or part of a non-corrupted organization know what the facts point to and that is AGW.
Maybe the deniers should also try responding to articles contradicting their view instead of just ignoring it.
Paul Bonham's mind, however, is so "open" his brains have fallen out.
As to evidence, Paul has never provided one shred of evidence for his cooky opinions. Scientists and rational people, unlike Paul, have actual standards for what is, and what is not, evidence. Paul believes everything anyone tells him so long as it agrees with what he already believes.
Well, not eveything is coming up rose for the warming cartel. Not all the press is sympathetic.
If we could clear up the pollution problems here in Canada with the loss of a mere 30,000 union jobs would you be agreeable? A lot of industry could relocate elsewhere and ship product to Canada. That would be the problem of their government to put a stop to pollution iin those nations if they felt the need to do so.
The article I have linked is from Britain. A nation with a highly paid workforce.
Summary: Adam is from the Ed Seedhouse School of Self Delusion: the tendency to believe that one is open minded and considers all evidence equally, while actually refusing to investigate and provide refutation for lines of evidence that lead to conclusions contradicting one's predisposed beliefs.
Paul Bonham's mind, however, is so "open" his brains have fallen out.
As to evidence, Paul has never provided one shred of evidence for his cooky opinions. Scientists and rational people, unlike Paul, have actual standards for what is, and what is not, evidence. Paul believes everything anyone tells him so long as it agrees with what he already believes.
Why don't you try telling us then, Adam: what are all the forces that make up our physical universe? Where do they come from? Gravity? Electric charge? Electromagnetic force? Magnetic attraction?
Whatever answer you could possibly give is just as possible, no more and no less, than the answer that most NDE'ers give: that it all stems from the force of love.
Sounds like your real life sucks. A total lack of love in your life could make you dangerous.
And yet there is ample and irrefutable evidence that it has been done, many times over. By disagreeing with this, you show yourself to be a fraud in arguing for AGW, because you prove that you won't investigate and refute evidence that contradicts your position.
I notice you are getting more shrill and using stronger and stronger language in putting down Sylvia's teachings. Yet still, you haven't answered my question to you much earlier on about the ball bearing that isn't really there. Your exalted sciences and maths prove it. The very things you hold dear teach you that your very reality is superstition.
Summary: Adam is from the Ed Seedhouse School of Self Delusion: the tendency to believe that one is open minded and considers all evidence equally, while actually refusing to investigate and provide refutation for lines of evidence that lead to conclusions contradicting one's predisposed beliefs.
I never said I had a lack of love, i just told you what love is, and how it is impossible for it to have any power whatsoever, and thinking anything else is nothing short of complete delusion, you should check yourself into a mental hospital and everyone else who believes that should go in with you. Obviously just because I disagree with you on the so-called power of love makes me a heartless bastard, idiocy at its finest.
Maybe next time try being a bit more specific, all the forces of the universe? matter and energy make up our universe, what do you mean by forces(energy could be considered a force)?
I'd rather believe some form of God created all the forces of the universe then love(even though both are obviously false). That is how deplorable I feel your position is...
Simple and irrefutable evidence that you fail too provide, since you kept on telling me to do research I did and I found quite a bit of contradictory evidence(who would have expected that, everyone besides Paul Bonham).
This is what I found:
"Like all human experiences, the NDE no doubt has a biologically-based trigger; yet its impact is most often felt as a psychological or spiritual event". So yeah they happen but they are because of the brain. Source: What is a NDE?-scroll down to the bottom to see the FACT section and why NDE's don't mean anything or prove anything.
Again proving how logic and reasoning often fall short when things get emotional and people start being irrational.
Penn and Teller-Bullshit talk about the the lunacy of the Ouija boards and believing NDE prove there is an afterlife(or has any real meaning at all, because of what modern neuroscience has to say about them ). Penn and Teller also have a couple episodes on the bullshit of physics and ESP, i implore you to check it out and realize the falsehood of your current beliefs.
Here's a nice list of why people can possibly lie about their NDE(like meeting the creator, and being with their family,etc..)
* money (from book-selling)
* enhancing a list of one's "spiritual" experiences (for sellers of spiritual hot air)
* being able to claim that one has a god-given mission in life
* giving additional (again god-given) legitimacy to one's advancing of (the religious side of) some sort of campaign
You keep talking about that how the metal ball is nothing analogy, like it is important.
Superstition: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
believing the metal ball is there is not irrational at the non-microscopic level because I can see it and hold it. Fear and ignorance don't come into play at all. I actually did answer your metal ball analogy back when I compared a metal ball to God for example(which proves their are different levels of superstition). How do you know that space is empty? Lawrence Krauss has a lecture talking about dark matter, maybe the metal ball is full of dark matter, just like space which apparently has massive gaps of nothingness but it is actually full of dark matter.
Now that I think about it, it probably would have been more logical to begin ridiculing at laughing at your delusional beliefs(like Ed) then actually debating you on it's fallacious nature. I actually found something Vlad and I agree on because of you(reincarnation, and some other parts of your beliefs).
You don't realize that is exactly what you are doing you aren't looking at any of the contradicting evidence, I do see your side and I'm not convinced in the slightest. There is much much more evidence going against your position then for it.
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Tuesday, 31st August, 2010, 12:03 AM.
....Acknowledge the power of love? Stop living in a fairy-tale! this is reality there is no such thing as that, life isn't a romance novel or a chick-flick, things don't work like that in real life.
Why don't you try telling us then, Adam: what are all the forces that make up our physical universe? Where do they come from? Gravity? Electric charge? Electromagnetic force? Magnetic attraction?
Whatever answer you could possibly give is just as possible, no more and no less, than the answer that most NDE'ers give: that it all stems from the force of love.
Sounds like your real life sucks. A total lack of love in your life could make you dangerous.
....you couldn't die follow me around that day seeing what I did and then come back to life, it's not possible.
And yet there is ample and irrefutable evidence that it has been done, many times over. By disagreeing with this, you show yourself to be a fraud in arguing for AGW, because you prove that you won't investigate and refute evidence that contradicts your position.
Maybe I don't want to waste my time researching some convict like Slyvia Browne with insane religious beliefs. I'm much more interested in academia courses(sciences and maths) then superstition.
I notice you are getting more shrill and using stronger and stronger language in putting down Sylvia's teachings. Yet still, you haven't answered my question to you much earlier on about the ball bearing that isn't really there. Your exalted sciences and maths prove it. The very things you hold dear teach you that your very reality is superstition.
Summary: Adam is from the Ed Seedhouse School of Self Delusion: the tendency to believe that one is open minded and considers all evidence equally, while actually refusing to investigate and provide refutation for lines of evidence that lead to conclusions contradicting one's predisposed beliefs.
Out of body experiences are not as uncommon as you may think. I had one myself while I was a university student in the 1970s, and was involved in a near-fatal car accident. If anyone would like to know more, my email address is pbokhout@rogers.com.
Forbidden by the same laws that govern all our existence on Earth, such as that we absolutely cannot go back in time and change something in the past (at least not without somehow jumping into a parallel universe). That makes perfect logical sense. What you need to realize in order to grow (spiritually) is that there are limitations placed on us here that we simply cannot break through. Knowing our future in great detail is one of these limitations.
Anyone who does not acknowledge the power of love is lost (but not lost forever, by grace). Additionally not believing that they are lost, nor understanding why, is in indication of extreme spiritual immaturity.
Well, Adam, think for a moment. If someone proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that your soul will live forever and will not suffer want or need (just hold onto that for a moment, don't fight it), what value would you then place on your Earthly existence? Practically zero. That means slaughtering millions of Earth people has no real significance, especially when you add to that the fact that all of those millions that were slaughtered agreed before they even came to Earth that they would be slaughtered!
But -- and this is a very big but -- it is not meant for us as a civilization or as a species to place zero value on Earthly existence. It is meant for MOST OF US to place value on it and thus to have a justice system that punishes those who slaughter or do other injustices to other people. You are showing yourself to be, in your current incarnation, one of these people. That is ok, because the rest of us do not disagree with this. We know that it must be so. I am all for Charles Manson being kept in prison for life, or heck, even put to death if the courts were to decide that. But at the same time, I know that the soul that is in his body will ultimately unite with it's creator. This is promised to all of us.
Oh, and I know you wrote something earlier about living forever would mean ultimately being bored, or something like that. What you are ignoring is the concept of infinity. Just as we can live eternally, so we can learn eternally. Just look at chess as an example. There is probably some finite number of possibly unique chess games. An unimaginable huge number, larger than the number of atoms in the universe, but still most likely finite. However, what about the rules of chess? Is it not possible that there might be infinite or nearly infinite ways to change the rules of chess, with each rule change creating another unimaginably huge number of possible games? And when chess and it's variants get exhausted, well, then there's poker! Or what about hockey, how many games of hockey would have to be played before it became impossible to have a unique game of hockey?
There are plenty of other mental / physical exercises besides games that could be extended into infinity.
Since you are not willing to delve further into Sylvia's teachings because of your Earthly bounds, I invite you to really, really start thinking about infinity. But of course, first of all you have to believe in it.
Well, this answer was the most disappointing I've seen from you, a total cop-out. It would be as bad if I posted tomorrow saying I was briefly dead tonight, and I visited you while dead, proving it by outlining in great detail everything you did tonight, every sentence you uttered or action you took, with nothing being wrong or amiss. And you responded that you don't understand my brain yet, so you can't give an answer about whether I really have a soul that left my body and visited you while I was dead.
If that isn't enough evidence for you, there is not much hope for you in your current incarnation. You will need to reincarnate at least one more time, or in this incarnation you will need to have your own NDE.
Well, how do you handle your sources for AGW? How do you verify them? Do the same for the sources you find regarding those who have been hyptonized into one of their past lives and recall names and events that independant researchers have later verified.
You claim to be so excellent at gathering evidence and making judgments based on facts and validation of sources. Maybe you don't WANT to do this for reincarnation, maybe you're afraid of finding out something you don't want to believe in???
And how do we know about these laws? They seem to me to be just created out of people's imagination. Time Travel on the other hand is an interesting subject, Dr. Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist) believes it is possible and says we will have the technology to be invisible in 10-15 years.
Acknowledge the power of love? Stop living in a fairy-tale! this is reality there is no such thing as that, life isn't a romance novel or a chick-flick, things don't work like that in real life.
The problem is someone has to prove that the soul exists beyond a shadow of a doubt, which I don't believe is possible.
Current and only incarnation you might want to add(unless my earlier incarnation was Albert Einstein).
So your religious beliefs is that no matter how bad someone is they will live in paradise with the creator and eventually become part of it. Have fun with Hitler...
You are implying souls or whatever we are up in your afterlife will want to do all these things for eternity, which is most-likely far from the truth. Too think everyone likes everything and will do everything for all of eternity is extremely tedious(and sounds boring to me). Plus don't we just become part of the creator in your afterlife, so we cease to exist anyways eventually.
Infinity is interesting, but Dr. Lawrence Krauss (physics professor) at one of his lectures talked about how little we know about the subject. He also criticizes string theory for various reasons.
I'm not willing to delve into Slyvia Browne's teachings because I'd rather look at the mass amounts of contradicting evidence to her abilities,teachings and her entire life basically.
Stop-Silvia Browne(an older website but with lots of links about all the screw-ups of Slyvia Browne and her lies, etc...)
But that would never happen, so I'm still unconvinced, you couldn't die follow me around that day seeing what I did and then come back to life, it's not possible.
If I do have a near-death experience it will be completely different from those of the religious because of my brain's feelings and opinions and how it influences NDEs.
There are other ways to gain knowledge about AGW then the internet, and if I go to a university website, that has lectures about AGW by world-renowned climatologists, that's a bit more convincing then some redneck down in the states. top ten facts why AGW is bullshit(and a few of his reasons are from the bible).
Maybe I don't want to waste my time researching some convict like Slyvia Browne with insane religious beliefs. I'm much more interested in academia courses(sciences and maths) then superstition.
Maybe you don't WANT to do this for reincarnation, maybe you're afraid of finding out something you don't want to believe in???
Or maybe Paul is full of you-know-what. I know which way I'm betting.
As to being afraid of finding out something they don't want to know, Paul's an excellent example of just that when it comes to climate change. So that makes him just another boring hypocrite.
Leave a comment: