"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ?
I must have missed the memo.


since the papers in question were peer reviewed are you tring to claim
they were politically motivated? like the idiots that claim the moon
landing was fake. how do you have a conspiracy that is secret and
concerns 1/2 million people? even 25000 people cannot keep a secret.

Uh, they weren't able to keep it a secret.

A conspiracy revealed ?
I must have missed another memo.

In which court of law was this case tried and which judge ruled here ? Judge Monckton ? Or judge Fox News ? Or judge Inhofe ?

Rob

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published.
2) How they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline".
3) How they fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't believe
you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If you can't
address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who repeats whatever
he is told by his masters.

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

josephus

--
ÿþI

spudnik wrote:

virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along
with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order --
is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although
a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is,
historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization).

I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with,
that *no* database shows "overall" warming --
not that the climate is not changing, rapidly,
in the Anthropocene.

thus:
nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering,
experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean,
it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy,
with a German thrown-in for "triality."


of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity,
via the re-adumbration of his dead-as-
a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle,
"the photon." well, and/or "the aether,"
necessitated by "the vacuum."


--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--NASCAR rules on rotary engines!
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com

thus:
Death to the lightcone --
long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and,
the photon is *still* dead,
no matter what herr Albert said about it!


pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of
Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee,
the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical
process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire,"
has had several editions, the latter of which take pains
to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is
is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.


thus:
as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit-
off
more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes;
and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large
manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I
mean,
just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be
affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?...
all of it, down to teh electronics etc.

my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try*
to consider the theory of light using only waves,
which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad"
textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones.

or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy
"theory,"
nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway,
one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon
by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time;
once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g.,
you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless
you're just learning it, for the first time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie


thus:
a-ha, I was correct:
say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as
I comprehend, they generally split the "photon"
into "two photons" of half the energy, I think
of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although
the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon,
such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso*
with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified
in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think
of them as "rocks o'light."
it could have been worse;
lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of"
in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned,
that is this particualr question!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...ser#The_experi...


thus:
if you let go of the empty notion of "photon,"
there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture.
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because,
Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death).
yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering;
thank you, herr doktor-professor E.,
for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory,"
that Young had successfully popped!

thus:
on the wayside, if
you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure
for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and
try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that
English is not your mother-tongue,
which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so,
that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
*no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)

thus:
The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is
at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One
must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last
hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also
under Waxman's House committee, and which,
after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S--
the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary"
cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate,
a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme).

Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ,
which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing,
more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh,
but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill
as "cap & tax!"

Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
considering that the oil companies have not bothered
to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?

Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
related!)

Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
for industry & infrastructure.)

--yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
(deadletter since March 27, 2000,
when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))

your humble idiot. look we know you are anti-science. think you are
funny. you keep trootting out the same objections that creationsts do.
"SCIENCE IS WRONG I HAVE PROOF"

right so do you.

josephus

--
ÿþI

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.


See below and then judge for yourself where your head is :

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published.

You have no clue what happened do you ?
In Dutch we would say : "You heard the ringing, but you are clueless where the bell is"

So let me ask you : WHICH "Climate Scientist" conspired WHAT ? and WHO used "peer review" to present WHICH opposing view that
exposed WHICH lies from being published WHERE ?

Once you find the details of that, you will see that the truth is absolutely opposite of the views that your spin-masters are
telling you.

2) How they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline".

WHAT "trick" was used to "hide" WHICH decline ?

Remember : in the denial industry, all stories gets spinned, and then spinned again, and then leverages to create more spin.

3) How they fudged the data.

WHICH data was fudged in which peer-reviewed paper ?

4) The list goes on.

Maybe in the mind of many people affected by the spin of anti-AGW and anti-science denial industry, but not in real life.

If anything, these emails DO show that if you have enough people that do not like particular message that science reveals, that
media spinners can create a story that some part of the population eats like hotcake. It also shows that these same spinners will
not shy in attacking scientists ad hominum, and even questioning science as a process of uncovering truth.

One piece of advice : START THINKING FOR YOURSELF !!!
Do NOT let the master spinners of the denial industry do that for you !

Unless, of course, you are being paid by them.
In that case, go ahead. Spin whatever you want.
Just be like all the other guys that get paid for denying AGW theory and attacking scientists.


Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't believe
you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If you can't
address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who repeats whatever
he is told by his masters.


That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ? Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?

Rob

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message

snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?

I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along
with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order --
is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although
a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is,
historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization).

I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with,
that *no* database shows "overall" warming --
not that the climate is not changing, rapidly,
in the Anthropocene.

thus:
nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering,
experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean,
it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy,
with a German thrown-in for "triality."

of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity,
via the re-adumbration of his dead-as-
a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle,
"the photon." well, and/or "the aether,"
necessitated by "the vacuum."

--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--NASCAR rules on rotary engines!
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com

thus:
Death to the lightcone --
long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and,
the photon is *still* dead,
no matter what herr Albert said about it!

pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of
Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee,
the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical
process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire,"
has had several editions, the latter of which take pains
to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is
is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.

thus:
as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit-
off
more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes;
and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large
manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I
mean,
just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be
affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?...
all of it, down to teh electronics etc.

my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try*
to consider the theory of light using only waves,
which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad"
textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones.

or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy
"theory,"
nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway,
one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon
by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time;
once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g.,
you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless
you're just learning it, for the first time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie

thus:
a-ha, I was correct:
say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as
I comprehend, they generally split the "photon"
into "two photons" of half the energy, I think
of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although
the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon,
such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso*
with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified
in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think
of them as "rocks o'light."
it could have been worse;
lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of"
in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned,
that is this particualr question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...ser#The_experi...

thus:
if you let go of the empty notion of "photon,"
there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture.
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because,
Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death).
yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering;
thank you, herr doktor-professor E.,
for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory,"
that Young had successfully popped!

thus:
on the wayside, if
you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure
for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and
try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that
English is not your mother-tongue,
which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so,
that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
*no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)

thus:
The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is
at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One
must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last
hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also
under Waxman's House committee, and which,
after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S--
the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary"
cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate,
a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme).

Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ,
which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing,
more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh,
but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill
as "cap & tax!"

Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
considering that the oil companies have not bothered
to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?

Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
related!)

Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
for industry & infrastructure.)

--yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
(deadletter since March 27, 2000,
when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Martian snipped out Dekker's questions to provide evidence for any of these allegations, and then claims :

Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

Mr. Martian : Your inability to back up your own empty allegations with ANY facts proves my point that you are are simply echoing
beliefs and spin that the denial industry feeds you.

I hope they pay you well for acting as a mindless parrot.

Rob

"spudnik" wrote in message ...
virtually all of "global" warming -- strictly a misnomer, along
with Arrhenius 1896 "glasshouse gasses," except to first-order --
is computerized simulacra & very selective reporting, although
a lot of the latter is just a generic lack of data (that is,
historical data for almost all glaciers -- not near civilization).

I say, from the few that I casually *am* familiar with,
that *no* database shows "overall" warming --
not that the climate is not changing, rapidly,
in the Anthropocene.

thus:
nah; we should blame Pascal for discovering,
experimentally, his "plenum," which he thought was perfect. I mean,
it's always good to have a French v. English dichotomy,
with a German thrown-in for "triality."

of Newton's "action at a distance" of gravity,
via the re-adumbration of his dead-as-
a-doornail-or-Schroedinger's-cat corpuscle,
"the photon." well, and/or "the aether,"
necessitated by "the vacuum."

--Light: A History!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--NASCAR rules on rotary engines!
http://white-smoke.wetpaint.com

thus:
Death to the lightcone --
long-live Minkowski!... yeah; and,
the photon is *still* dead,
no matter what herr Albert said about it!

pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of
Principia Mathematica, a product of a committee,
the Royal Society, after "the MS burnt in an alchemical
process that set the trunk in which it was resting, afire,"
has had several editions, the latter of which take pains
to omit mention of Robert Hooke. The sole calculus is
is a rectangle, dxdy, in Book 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2.

thus:
as a student of Bucky Fuller -- an army of one, I say -- you've bit-
off
more than you should want to chew, with the n-hole spin on fullerenes;
and that is my clue, because a fullerene should have a very large
manifestation of polarization, not unlike in a game of futbol. I
mean,
just becaus the ball went through only one slit, why wouldn't it be
affected by the total symmetry of the instrumentation?...
all of it, down to teh electronics etc.

my main thing was, though, that you should at least *try*
to consider the theory of light using only waves,
which can still be pieced-together from almost any "undergrad"
textbook, post-Copenhagen, especially older ones.

or, just stick with Einstein's refurbishment of Newton's crappy
"theory,"
nothing of which is needed for relativity & so on. anyway,
one simply does not need to analyze a phenomenon
by *both* its wavey & bullety aspects -- at the same time;
once you have proven a theorem in projective geometry e.g.,
you do not have to give the "2nd column proof," unless
you're just learning it, for the first time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie

thus:
a-ha, I was correct:
say "half," with respect to the beamsplitters, please (as
I comprehend, they generally split the "photon"
into "two photons" of half the energy, I think
of a different frequency, not amplitude -- although
the "photon" is really more akin to a phonon,
such as the audible "click" of the geiger-counter. the *proviso*
with these experiments is that the waves are highly modified
in the LASER apparatus, so that some folks more easily think
of them as "rocks o'light."
it could have been worse;
lots of more-or-less literate folks use "of"
in the place of "have" -- to be or not to be owned,
that is this particualr question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed...ser#The_experi...

thus:
if you let go of the empty notion of "photon,"
there isn't any difficulty, at all, with a geometrical picture.
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads (because,
Minkowski was only one of them, by haphazard default/death).
yes, I know, that *photonics* is a whole field of engineering;
thank you, herr doktor-professor E.,
for unburying Newton's bogus corpuscle and attendant "theory,"
that Young had successfully popped!

thus:
on the wayside, if
you are really going to set so much store in a two-hole procedure
for fullerenes, maybe you shouold read the original article, and
try to question its purpose. as it is, I'd guess that
English is not your mother-tongue,
which can sometimes prove difficult in *using* it; so,
that's why I always suggest Shakespeare, becuase
*no* one can *begin* to comprehend English,
til he *tries* to read the bard. (he also had a hand
in translating the KJV of the Bible .-)

thus:
The "cap & trade" omnibus bill -- what Waxman-Markey should
be known as, being so fundamental to the Stupid, economy -- is
at least as old as Waxman's '91 bill to ameliorate acid rain. One
must really stop and consider, just who really opposes this "last
hurrah" for Wall Street (like-wise, the healthcare bill, also
under Waxman's House committee, and which,
after all, is geared toward funding a smaller aspect of the S--
the economy, already tremendously leveraged by the "voluntary"
cap & trade, which the bill would essentially mandate,
a la the much-larger, market-making EU scheme).

Not so long ago, there was a guest-editorial in the WSJ,
which mentioned that a carbon tax would achieve the same thing,
more or less, as the total "free" trade approach of cap & trade; oh,
but, there're certain, so-called Republicans, who refer to the bill
as "cap & tax!"

Well, before any "reform" of the financial system, why
would one put all of one's eggs into such a casino -- especially
considering that the oil companies have not bothered
to release the carbon-dating "fingerprints" that they use,
to determine whether two wells are connected, underground; so,
guys & gals, how old is the stuff, on average, anyway?

Surely, the green-niks who lobby for "renewable" energy, do not think
that oil comes only from dinosaurs, and their associated flora --
all, from before the asteroid supposedly offed them (I refer them
to the recent issue of Nature -- several articles that may be
related!)

Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a)
nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen
into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some
folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly
achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capbility
for industry & infrastructure.)

--yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65
(deadletter since March 27, 2000,
when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))


Sputnik, you are rambling incomprehensible nonsense without relevance to the context of this thread.
Please kill your your text-generator program, and summarize what your point is.

Rob

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

I realize you're new here, but there are proponents and skeptics.
Proponents are supposed to, well, propose, a specific theory, then those
that have questions about the theory (skeptics) ask them to explain the
aspects that they think don't fit.

At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that says
anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause severe
problems in the future.

Unfortunately for the theory, but fortunately for humanity, the theory
predicts only 0.6K of warming per century from CO2 at the present rate.

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks which
cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They seem
unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they believe
climate models, but don't understand them.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
are willing or able to explain it specifically.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.