JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.
I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.

Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement
lately?

You just proved his point, Bertie.

Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever
altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.
I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.

Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement
lately?

You just proved his point, Bertie.

Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry?



Stalking you? When people jump on your silly comments, you consider it
stalking?

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you
to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because
it means that it is not all objective.

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey...

ROTFLMAO!

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and
Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start
childish name calling.


Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately?

Bert, first, are you ready to take the $5000 challenge to prove that
I'm not Kevin? Put up or shut up, it's as simple as that. Next, what to
HELL are you talking about? Do you have some sort of evidence that me
or Kevin, or anyone is growing anything in anybody's basement? Again,
put up, or shut up. It's as simple as that. Now, go watch Sean and Rush
refresh your brain....

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey...

That's been proven by me. Don't remember? Laughing gas getting to your
brain? Did you figure out exactly what length of time "almost
instantaneous" is? How long IS it?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html

They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best
fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the
explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this
objective approach to understanding our world?

Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe
something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your
"peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic
considerations.

Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to
sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it
means that it is not all objective.


No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and
measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new
hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More testing
and measurement. And so on.

The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the data
to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers are then
expected to challenge your data and conclusions through repeating the
experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking for flaws in the
structure or design of your experiment, data, and conclusions.

It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and
repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is based
on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means the data
has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable scientific
community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is the group of
scientists who practice the scientific method as the means to understanding
our physical world. Peers does not refer to some knucklehead who took 10th
grade biology nor to an idividual who has an emotionally driven agenda.

And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation,
experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to
explain our world and new data to improve the explanation.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:42:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

*********************************
No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just
another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here
every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone
really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in
your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do
anything about it.

Get a life.
**********************************

The quote above was written by...an adult!
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************