Today I witnessed a prime example of bad management. I stopped by McDonald's today for lunch and there were about 5 people standing around waiting for their order. When pulling up, I had noticed a very long line for the drive-thru but then again it was about 12:30. There is a certain amount of chaos you expect to see during a lunch rush but this was bad.
I stood at the cashier's station for about 3 minutes before the manager noticed me and came over to take my order. She yelled out "where's Stacy" before stepping up to take the order. After giving me my receipt, she walked back toward junction of the drive-thru and kitchen aisle. This manager started yelling at the people in back telling them to step it up. She then started calling off the times on the oldest orders and asking who had them. To press her point about long wait times, she gathered five workers around her and made them look at the screen while she berated them on not working fast enough.
While this was going on, a line was forming at the cash register and a queue of 6 people formed up waiting for their orders to be taken. Someone also came in who had gone through the drive-thru and he stood at the register holding his bag beside of those awaiting to give their orders. The manager walked over when she saw him and he leaned over speaking softly to her. She took the bag and yelled out "Who gave out two sausage and eggs? This man ordered two sausage biscuits and someone messed it up. Who gave this man the wrong order? Who did you people give his order to?"
It got worse fairly quick. She started yelling that they should have her sausage biscuits to her as a priority. Meanwhile, she made sure that she was standing at the "pinch point" between the kitchen, front, and drive-thru where anyone going for food or toward a customer had to edge their way around her. She wasn't a small woman.
During this time I had seen a couple people get their orders through the drive-thru and employees had brought out two orders to those waiting. The Manager apparently wasn't getting the two sausage biscuits quickly enough and started yelling "Seven minutes! Seven minutes now! What are you people doing? Seven minutes we've got them waiting." Two more people had been added to the line waiting to order (nobody was running the cash registers) and one person left the line and headed to the bathroom.
A young woman came out from the back, slit by the manager, and stepped up to take orders. After taking two orders, the manager yelled at her "Candy, get back there and help these guys. They are falling behind." The woman simply took a deep breath and asked the next person how she could help them. A few moments later the manager came up with the bag of two sausage biscuits and handed them to the man who had gotten the wrong order. She leaned over and said something to the woman she had called Candy that I was unable to hear. After this she went back and stood in the same spot and continued to tell her staff to step it up.
I was watching this happening as the employees were having to detour around the manager to fill orders and move from one area to the next. One girl even stumbled sliding by the manager and dropped the order for the drive-thru eliciting the manager to say "That's trash, you people need to get it together!"
After a couple of minutes more, a woman brought my order out and I was able to leave. All told, my wait was about eight minutes, long but not unreasonable. As I left, I felt pity for the employees working under that manager. In the short time that I was in the building, I saw several examples of what not to do as a manager. Instead of jumping in and working, she decided to spend her time obstructing her employees. She loudly and publicly berated them. By standing in the "pinch point", she was actually causing the problems that she was yelling about. What was worse though is I heard several other customers complaining about her actions. She was making a spectacle of herself while customers stood waiting for someone to help them.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
The results are in
Posting backwards (Posted this to FB first instead of allowing it to trickle over)
Donald Trump has won the Presidency of the United States of America. For many, they are sitting in stunned disbelief. Others are cheering in utter disbelief. Those who watched the polls and listened to the news for the last three months have been told that Clinton would win. A win by Trump should have been impossible, we were told by the experts it couldn't happen. They ignored the honest polls (Quinnipiac University) and instead focused on CNN or NBC guessing games. Many deluded themselves by seeing Clinton as a shining example of greatness but refused to see the reality that even her convention "win" was a disaster. You people have not only proven yourselves to be ignorant, but you have proven yourselves gullible sheep.
I won't talk about Trump's negatives right now. I just want to point out that in 2013 Clinton herself said she wanted to see Trump run for office since he was one of the most honest people she knew who had amazing integrity. Trump wasn't the perfect candidate, in fact he couldn't have won if Sanders or Webb had taken the nomination. That's right, Democrats chose their own downfall by crowning the monarch a little too early. I can say with conviction that Trump was the inevitable outcome of 30 years of globalist activism. How will he do as President? I don't know but it will be interesting to see. Congress will limit him but maybe he will bring down the Fourth Estate (The Bureaucratic Branch of government).
I was told by many of my Facebook friends that Clinton was the better choice. Clinton wasn't really as bad as the press was making her out to be. Clinton shouldn't be held to the same laws as "regular" Americans. This election was partially about the Rule of Law and America just voted that there are no people too big to jail.
I've heard celebrities and even some of my Facebook friends say they are moving to Canada if Trump wins. Well bye, I'll miss some of you. Honestly though this type of infantile posturing won't happen. 99% don't have the courage to actually follow through on their threat. This shows a general lack of integrity of those making the statements about leaving as well as a shared conviction with Harry Reid that words don't matter... lies are acceptable if it gets the results you want. I myself find this unacceptable.
Now that the media fear mongering and partisanship has proven ineffective, we may now begin to see a glimpse of reality behind the spin. This election wasn't about the candidates, it was about a vision for America. If you believe America is doing fine and going in the right direction, you voted for Clinton and are now shaken to the core. If you believe America is in trouble and our politicians are making it worse, you voted for Trump and are now surprised that so many people feel the way you do.
Congress didn't change though and won't until term limits are put in place so no matter who the President is they have limited ability to get anything done. The Supreme Court will have 3 or 4 seats filled over the next 4 years. If Clinton won she had made promises that would have changed America forever. She promised to dismantle many of the principles the country was founded on including the Bill of Rights. Trump has made promises that he will appoint judges in the mold of Scallia, who will uphold the Constitution against progressive partisanship. This is the single thing a President Trump can do that will ensure a lasting legacy even if Congress moves against him and prevents him from getting any policy goals accomplished.
Now to the elephant in the room. Democrats are now afraid that Trump will emulate saint Obama and rule by executive fiat and by simply ignoring laws he doesn't like. They won't be able to stop Trump from doing what Obama has done for 8 years, ignore laws passed by Congress and only enforce the ones he wants. They can't impeach him because Obama set a precedent, so since it has been done now it can be done by a President from either party without fear. I don't think this is a good thing. I've been saying Obama should have been impeached 4 years ago but Democrats have laughed that off by deluding themselves that they wouldn't be on the opposite end of an Enhanced President. Had Obama been impeached, Trump would have to govern instead of rule.
While I think Trump winning the Presidency may have delayed the dissolving of this country by a bit, it hasn't stopped the trend. Clinton winning would have hastened the decline by lowering the bar even further for President. Unfortunately most people will ignore the lessons this election has to offer and will try to paint it as an aberration. Those who do this are doing a disservice to themselves and the country. Now is a time for the country to stand tall and take stock from within. We have been systematically stripped of our identity by nearly 60 years of divisive leadership and a news media that has served its own agenda instead of reporting the facts. As a country we need to decide what we have in common. What binds us together as a nation. Without finding something to hold us together again, the nation will fall.
In closing I would like to ask people to stop feeling sorry for themselves or to quit gloating about a temporary win. Start looking at those you disagree with and actually engage them in discussions. Quit the lecturing of those you feel are inferior and begin to listen to those who may have absorbed wisdom. Let's learn from each other and find a way forward that everyone can be proud again. There was once a time when the decision between Presidential candidates was a simple difference of opinion. When and why did we allow it to become something more? Can we find a way to become one nation again? Can we coexist with those with whom we disagree without violence, intolerance, intimidation, or threats?
Donald Trump has won the Presidency of the United States of America. For many, they are sitting in stunned disbelief. Others are cheering in utter disbelief. Those who watched the polls and listened to the news for the last three months have been told that Clinton would win. A win by Trump should have been impossible, we were told by the experts it couldn't happen. They ignored the honest polls (Quinnipiac University) and instead focused on CNN or NBC guessing games. Many deluded themselves by seeing Clinton as a shining example of greatness but refused to see the reality that even her convention "win" was a disaster. You people have not only proven yourselves to be ignorant, but you have proven yourselves gullible sheep.
I won't talk about Trump's negatives right now. I just want to point out that in 2013 Clinton herself said she wanted to see Trump run for office since he was one of the most honest people she knew who had amazing integrity. Trump wasn't the perfect candidate, in fact he couldn't have won if Sanders or Webb had taken the nomination. That's right, Democrats chose their own downfall by crowning the monarch a little too early. I can say with conviction that Trump was the inevitable outcome of 30 years of globalist activism. How will he do as President? I don't know but it will be interesting to see. Congress will limit him but maybe he will bring down the Fourth Estate (The Bureaucratic Branch of government).
I was told by many of my Facebook friends that Clinton was the better choice. Clinton wasn't really as bad as the press was making her out to be. Clinton shouldn't be held to the same laws as "regular" Americans. This election was partially about the Rule of Law and America just voted that there are no people too big to jail.
I've heard celebrities and even some of my Facebook friends say they are moving to Canada if Trump wins. Well bye, I'll miss some of you. Honestly though this type of infantile posturing won't happen. 99% don't have the courage to actually follow through on their threat. This shows a general lack of integrity of those making the statements about leaving as well as a shared conviction with Harry Reid that words don't matter... lies are acceptable if it gets the results you want. I myself find this unacceptable.
Now that the media fear mongering and partisanship has proven ineffective, we may now begin to see a glimpse of reality behind the spin. This election wasn't about the candidates, it was about a vision for America. If you believe America is doing fine and going in the right direction, you voted for Clinton and are now shaken to the core. If you believe America is in trouble and our politicians are making it worse, you voted for Trump and are now surprised that so many people feel the way you do.
Congress didn't change though and won't until term limits are put in place so no matter who the President is they have limited ability to get anything done. The Supreme Court will have 3 or 4 seats filled over the next 4 years. If Clinton won she had made promises that would have changed America forever. She promised to dismantle many of the principles the country was founded on including the Bill of Rights. Trump has made promises that he will appoint judges in the mold of Scallia, who will uphold the Constitution against progressive partisanship. This is the single thing a President Trump can do that will ensure a lasting legacy even if Congress moves against him and prevents him from getting any policy goals accomplished.
Now to the elephant in the room. Democrats are now afraid that Trump will emulate saint Obama and rule by executive fiat and by simply ignoring laws he doesn't like. They won't be able to stop Trump from doing what Obama has done for 8 years, ignore laws passed by Congress and only enforce the ones he wants. They can't impeach him because Obama set a precedent, so since it has been done now it can be done by a President from either party without fear. I don't think this is a good thing. I've been saying Obama should have been impeached 4 years ago but Democrats have laughed that off by deluding themselves that they wouldn't be on the opposite end of an Enhanced President. Had Obama been impeached, Trump would have to govern instead of rule.
While I think Trump winning the Presidency may have delayed the dissolving of this country by a bit, it hasn't stopped the trend. Clinton winning would have hastened the decline by lowering the bar even further for President. Unfortunately most people will ignore the lessons this election has to offer and will try to paint it as an aberration. Those who do this are doing a disservice to themselves and the country. Now is a time for the country to stand tall and take stock from within. We have been systematically stripped of our identity by nearly 60 years of divisive leadership and a news media that has served its own agenda instead of reporting the facts. As a country we need to decide what we have in common. What binds us together as a nation. Without finding something to hold us together again, the nation will fall.
In closing I would like to ask people to stop feeling sorry for themselves or to quit gloating about a temporary win. Start looking at those you disagree with and actually engage them in discussions. Quit the lecturing of those you feel are inferior and begin to listen to those who may have absorbed wisdom. Let's learn from each other and find a way forward that everyone can be proud again. There was once a time when the decision between Presidential candidates was a simple difference of opinion. When and why did we allow it to become something more? Can we find a way to become one nation again? Can we coexist with those with whom we disagree without violence, intolerance, intimidation, or threats?
Saturday, October 1, 2016
It's amazing the reasons people come up with to justify their voting choice.
Today I had a very strange day. I met several Hillary Clinton supporters and spoke with them about their reasons for voting Clinton. Some of them shared the same convictions and I was awestruck by a few of them.
#1 Mind Blower: Trump is responsible for Russia and Iran hating us. His rhetoric is so hateful that they have are becoming our enemies. If Trump is elected President, either Russia or Iran will bomb us. (Several Clinton supporters held this view and none disputed their logic.)
Reaction: I stood there in utter amazement. For more reasons that I care to go into, this line of thinking is flawed. The four who were pressing this as a reason were so sure of their facts that they appear to believe Russia and Iran have been our allies for decades and only this year have developed problems with us. I couldn't bring myself to mention the Iran Hostage Crisis or the Cold War. I have to admit that I couldn't confront them on this reasoning simply because I couldn't bring myself to speak. How can you dispute something that has no basic in logic?
#2 Mind Blower: Trump is too wealthy to be President. Anyone as rich as he is would be too smart to be President; they wouldn't want to lock themselves into 4 years of hell. He must be corrupt and have an agenda. Yes, he's too smart to really want to be President so he must have an ulterior motive.
Reaction: I stood there for a moment and thought this through as two supporters discussed it. I then brought out how Clinton was wealthy and they laughed saying she was broke in 2000, so she can't be rich. My wife mentioned Ross Peroit and that was ignored. The result of this discussion is that I burst out laughing and walked away.
I remembered a 2010 study that said Washington was our wealthiest President who was worth about 560 million in today's dollar. In perspective, Clinton is worth about 111 Million and Obama is estimated at just under 500 million. As of July 2016, court filing show Trump to be worth about 2 Billion.
#3 Mind Blower: Voting for Clinton get's us Bill Clinton back as President. "Everybody knows" he will be the one in charge in the White House. Who cares about Hillary Clinton's issues. She won't be the one in charge and her husband will be back in control of the country.
Reaction: I tried to point out that Bill is barred by law from being President again. They told me that she would always do what he told her to do so she'd be President in name only. I tried to point out how that kind of logic flies in the face of Hillary's own movement of being the first woman President. I was given a pat on the shoulder and told "They are old school. Hillary will do exactly what her husband tells her to do." I tried to argue this one with them saying Bill isn't running and won't be able to sit in on many of her meetings and briefings. Absolutely nothing I said could penetrate what I felt was their delusion. In a group of about eight Clinton supporters, all agreed that a vote for Hillary is really a vote for Bill.
There were one or two people who espoused the opinion that Trump was unfit but would give no specifics. One young woman (I didn't think she was old enough to vote) said that she was going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. One couple said they were voting for Hillary because they were Democrats.
There were two Hillary supporters who acted as the focal point of my experience today. I was in their business shopping and met several groups of people who came in to discuss politics with them. In my hour sitting there talking with people I can't remember how many came through just to talk politics. All of those who came in did so apparently JUST to talk politics and they were all Clinton supporters. I was told by the store owner that they normally don't talk politics but people have learned they can drop by to talk about Clinton so on the weekends that's what they do.
Tomorrow I will try to discuss with people I know support Trump their reasons for voting to see if I can get a comparison.
#1 Mind Blower: Trump is responsible for Russia and Iran hating us. His rhetoric is so hateful that they have are becoming our enemies. If Trump is elected President, either Russia or Iran will bomb us. (Several Clinton supporters held this view and none disputed their logic.)
Reaction: I stood there in utter amazement. For more reasons that I care to go into, this line of thinking is flawed. The four who were pressing this as a reason were so sure of their facts that they appear to believe Russia and Iran have been our allies for decades and only this year have developed problems with us. I couldn't bring myself to mention the Iran Hostage Crisis or the Cold War. I have to admit that I couldn't confront them on this reasoning simply because I couldn't bring myself to speak. How can you dispute something that has no basic in logic?
#2 Mind Blower: Trump is too wealthy to be President. Anyone as rich as he is would be too smart to be President; they wouldn't want to lock themselves into 4 years of hell. He must be corrupt and have an agenda. Yes, he's too smart to really want to be President so he must have an ulterior motive.
Reaction: I stood there for a moment and thought this through as two supporters discussed it. I then brought out how Clinton was wealthy and they laughed saying she was broke in 2000, so she can't be rich. My wife mentioned Ross Peroit and that was ignored. The result of this discussion is that I burst out laughing and walked away.
I remembered a 2010 study that said Washington was our wealthiest President who was worth about 560 million in today's dollar. In perspective, Clinton is worth about 111 Million and Obama is estimated at just under 500 million. As of July 2016, court filing show Trump to be worth about 2 Billion.
#3 Mind Blower: Voting for Clinton get's us Bill Clinton back as President. "Everybody knows" he will be the one in charge in the White House. Who cares about Hillary Clinton's issues. She won't be the one in charge and her husband will be back in control of the country.
Reaction: I tried to point out that Bill is barred by law from being President again. They told me that she would always do what he told her to do so she'd be President in name only. I tried to point out how that kind of logic flies in the face of Hillary's own movement of being the first woman President. I was given a pat on the shoulder and told "They are old school. Hillary will do exactly what her husband tells her to do." I tried to argue this one with them saying Bill isn't running and won't be able to sit in on many of her meetings and briefings. Absolutely nothing I said could penetrate what I felt was their delusion. In a group of about eight Clinton supporters, all agreed that a vote for Hillary is really a vote for Bill.
There were one or two people who espoused the opinion that Trump was unfit but would give no specifics. One young woman (I didn't think she was old enough to vote) said that she was going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. One couple said they were voting for Hillary because they were Democrats.
There were two Hillary supporters who acted as the focal point of my experience today. I was in their business shopping and met several groups of people who came in to discuss politics with them. In my hour sitting there talking with people I can't remember how many came through just to talk politics. All of those who came in did so apparently JUST to talk politics and they were all Clinton supporters. I was told by the store owner that they normally don't talk politics but people have learned they can drop by to talk about Clinton so on the weekends that's what they do.
Tomorrow I will try to discuss with people I know support Trump their reasons for voting to see if I can get a comparison.
Monday, May 9, 2016
Math and the Laws of Physics: A layman's folly/hope
I've been reading a book lately that does a pretty good job of summing up our macroscopic ideas of physics. Basically it explains in multiple parts how we understand how things work. These laws of physics explain and allow for everything from why we stand upright and why chemical reactions occur to why it's considered impossible to create a perpetual motion device.
While I've been reading this book, I've been continuing a pet project of mine, that of writing a science fiction novel. In order for the universe in which I write to exist, as a civilization we have to be able to travel faster than light. My theories have been based on solid physics but have come up against some hurdles. The perceptual hurdles don't concern me as I can explain them easily. The main hurdle to my theorized method has been working out the mathematical mechanics for what I envision as a FTL drive. I need this equation to put proper limits on how fast or far a ship can travel. In several chapters of this book, it brushes against my theory reinforcing it but at the same time stating the problem that I keep running into.
When I try to work out the mathematical formula for FTL travel (a formula explaining the amount of energy required to travel a certain distance) I find that I keep ending up with results that violate common sense and all logic. To put it in layman's terms, the results of all my equations end up either as failing to achieve FTL velocities or create large leaps that end in infinite velocities. Due to reading this book though, I was given a source to look at where others are trying to solve the same equations. Looking to their equations, they are having the same problems that I experience and they are recognized experts in mathematics, physics, and quantum mechanics.
Oddly, this doesn't discourage me based on my theory of an FTL drive. Instead, I find more validation for my theory to work. Despite the failure in mathematics, the results suggest a 5th force in nature and is the very heart of the physics of my drive.
Almost everyone is familiar with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (E=MC2) - note that 2 means squared. The problem is that most people believe this theory is gospel and can be used to explain everything. However his theory is very specific and can be easily violated with the laws of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein pretty much just defined Gravity as we understand it. I have to state now that most physicists seem think we don't really understand the true laws of Gravity. The search for the Higgs-Bosum particle is an example of the search for greater understanding. This so called "God Particle" would explain gravity at the quantum level. If a particle is found to explain quantum gravity, it will probably destroy Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I don't have what is considered a classical education in physics. By most scientists I would be considered a layman. Honestly speaking, without doing the research of reading books and papers such as the current book, I wouldn't even have the common language by which to discuss my theories. Still, nothing discovered or canonized by modern physics invalidates my theories. Not only that, many physicists have similar theories that are just missing one or two components. These necessary steps that are incorporated into my theory make it possible for a layman to postulate a theory that has eluded science for generations, how to travel faster than the speed of light.
Hopefully I will one day have my novel published with the science intact. Maybe it will inspire a scientist to look in a new direction and lead to our development of this futuristic technology. Although I admit the techniques are too advanced for our current tech level, travel using my theories may one day become the standard for interstellar travel. Since Michael Faraday, a layman hasn't had such an effect on science on such a scale.
Is this optimism or delusions of grandeur again?
While I've been reading this book, I've been continuing a pet project of mine, that of writing a science fiction novel. In order for the universe in which I write to exist, as a civilization we have to be able to travel faster than light. My theories have been based on solid physics but have come up against some hurdles. The perceptual hurdles don't concern me as I can explain them easily. The main hurdle to my theorized method has been working out the mathematical mechanics for what I envision as a FTL drive. I need this equation to put proper limits on how fast or far a ship can travel. In several chapters of this book, it brushes against my theory reinforcing it but at the same time stating the problem that I keep running into.
When I try to work out the mathematical formula for FTL travel (a formula explaining the amount of energy required to travel a certain distance) I find that I keep ending up with results that violate common sense and all logic. To put it in layman's terms, the results of all my equations end up either as failing to achieve FTL velocities or create large leaps that end in infinite velocities. Due to reading this book though, I was given a source to look at where others are trying to solve the same equations. Looking to their equations, they are having the same problems that I experience and they are recognized experts in mathematics, physics, and quantum mechanics.
Oddly, this doesn't discourage me based on my theory of an FTL drive. Instead, I find more validation for my theory to work. Despite the failure in mathematics, the results suggest a 5th force in nature and is the very heart of the physics of my drive.
Almost everyone is familiar with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (E=MC2) - note that 2 means squared. The problem is that most people believe this theory is gospel and can be used to explain everything. However his theory is very specific and can be easily violated with the laws of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein pretty much just defined Gravity as we understand it. I have to state now that most physicists seem think we don't really understand the true laws of Gravity. The search for the Higgs-Bosum particle is an example of the search for greater understanding. This so called "God Particle" would explain gravity at the quantum level. If a particle is found to explain quantum gravity, it will probably destroy Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I don't have what is considered a classical education in physics. By most scientists I would be considered a layman. Honestly speaking, without doing the research of reading books and papers such as the current book, I wouldn't even have the common language by which to discuss my theories. Still, nothing discovered or canonized by modern physics invalidates my theories. Not only that, many physicists have similar theories that are just missing one or two components. These necessary steps that are incorporated into my theory make it possible for a layman to postulate a theory that has eluded science for generations, how to travel faster than the speed of light.
Hopefully I will one day have my novel published with the science intact. Maybe it will inspire a scientist to look in a new direction and lead to our development of this futuristic technology. Although I admit the techniques are too advanced for our current tech level, travel using my theories may one day become the standard for interstellar travel. Since Michael Faraday, a layman hasn't had such an effect on science on such a scale.
Is this optimism or delusions of grandeur again?
Friday, April 29, 2016
Delusions of Grandeur
Today I had to face the fact that I may have Delusions of Grandeur. I spoke to two people who know me and explained the my theories and my thoughts. They thought not. To explain here, I'll have to get into a little physics.
Sometime between 1980 and 1986 I developed a Theory and built an imaginary space vehicle both powered by and armed with technology beyond what was currently available. One of the core pieces for this vessel was an energy source using energies plasma contained in a magnetic field. At my young age I didn't have the language for this source of energy but I later learned that what I was envisioning Nuclear Fusion.
By 1986 I had "fleshed out" the model for this ship including the energy sources and during this process I postulated certain criteria for this Fusion Reactor to operate. Among other things there were two paramount requirements, the first being the ability to generate and contain a fuel source in a stable plasma field. The second requirement would be control of the plasma fuel via magnetic fields to prevent the plasma from contacting the "normal material" of the shell. While the first criteria can be satisfied now with advanced technology, the second requirement isn't so easy to accomplish. I recognized that any magnetic field would be easily disrupted and any bulge or dip in the containment would result in a containment failure. The biggest hurdle I could see was that the Earth's gravitational field would eventually disrupt the powerful EM field needed to make the Fusion cell work. Although no mathematician, the only way I could overcome this was by building the Fusion Reactor in the micro gravity of space. If built outside of a large gravitational well, maintaining the requisite EM compression and containment shield should just become an issue of available power.
In 2012 I became aware of fusion research being done around the globe. I read about the French Laser Mégajoule, HiPER, facility and their ongoing research into Fusion. I was surprised to see that their research was taking the same pathway as my own theories. They were using a revolutionary technique of building a magnetic doughnut for containment. Still, having read their reports I saw their progress being hampered by malformations of the EM field and disruptions caused by "background" energies. While their research is impressive (and I have kept up with their progress) they are still a long way away from a sustainable Fusion Reactor.
Another aspect of the design for my "ship" was the use of Helium as a conductive gas throughout the design and use of the ship. Helium lasers seemed to me to be very effective and versatile. In it's basic elemental form Helium is a remarkable element with many properties that would be useful in the design of a space going vessel. It is a stable element, non-toxic, abundant, and easily transmutable to different states. Other than being a medium for lasers, the Helium would also serve as a conductive material allowing for a predictable and stable distribution of power although I would couple it with Neon for the internal systems. Neon would be my preferred element to combine with Helium for the internal systems due to their similarity of functions and the ability to substitute Neon for most usages of Helium in an emergency. Finally, the reason I used Helium in my design is due to the ease by which Helium Plasma can be generated and utilized into the Fusion process. Since the element is the 2nd most abundant in the known universe, it could be harvested with ease from stray material floating through space. Since the primary power source and main weapon of the ship would be dependent on the plasma fueled Fusion Core, it made sense to use a medium that was both on hand and easily replaceable.
This now goes back to the primary system of my design, the Fusion Reactor. Helium Plasma is one of the mediums some researchers are using to create a fusion reaction. Hydrogen is by far the most desirable, but Helium is less volatile and easier to work with in many cases. Again I see that my design postulated theories and provided solutions that are now being put to work by the scientific community many decades later.
There were other systems I worked out in the vessel that were all codependent on each other. I just mentioned two of the many systems that work together to make the whole function. Another important element to the function of the whole was a Cyclotron. Honestly here I have to say that although it would work, advances have brought us more efficient Particle Accelerators that would work much better than my original design.
I will come back to this again later but I wanted to lay down the foundations. You see, I have theories and ideas that are not what could be called "mainstream" science. In fact, had I been old enough to publish my theories back in the 80's I would have been called a fool, ignorant, or simply ignored. Today though, I see that those long ago theories have born fruit as others have discovered what I found in my youth.
So you see here is the issue. A large part of me wants to write down all my observations, theories, and insights then send them to leading physicists. I believe that locked within my brain are avenues of research that could advance our understanding of the universe and leap us forward by several decades. While I mention only two of my old concepts that have come forward and been discovered by modern physicists, these are fairly small accomplishments compared the the possibility of my most extreme ideas. Am I suffering from Delusions of Grandeur by believing that locked within a mind not classically trained are the keys to understanding new aspects of physics? Am I delusional for looking back at my old designs and seeing their modern usage? I've been told by others that it isn't delusional but instead optimistic. I wonder though if some future physicist will be working on Rutherford's Law in his own research.
Sometime between 1980 and 1986 I developed a Theory and built an imaginary space vehicle both powered by and armed with technology beyond what was currently available. One of the core pieces for this vessel was an energy source using energies plasma contained in a magnetic field. At my young age I didn't have the language for this source of energy but I later learned that what I was envisioning Nuclear Fusion.
By 1986 I had "fleshed out" the model for this ship including the energy sources and during this process I postulated certain criteria for this Fusion Reactor to operate. Among other things there were two paramount requirements, the first being the ability to generate and contain a fuel source in a stable plasma field. The second requirement would be control of the plasma fuel via magnetic fields to prevent the plasma from contacting the "normal material" of the shell. While the first criteria can be satisfied now with advanced technology, the second requirement isn't so easy to accomplish. I recognized that any magnetic field would be easily disrupted and any bulge or dip in the containment would result in a containment failure. The biggest hurdle I could see was that the Earth's gravitational field would eventually disrupt the powerful EM field needed to make the Fusion cell work. Although no mathematician, the only way I could overcome this was by building the Fusion Reactor in the micro gravity of space. If built outside of a large gravitational well, maintaining the requisite EM compression and containment shield should just become an issue of available power.
In 2012 I became aware of fusion research being done around the globe. I read about the French Laser Mégajoule, HiPER, facility and their ongoing research into Fusion. I was surprised to see that their research was taking the same pathway as my own theories. They were using a revolutionary technique of building a magnetic doughnut for containment. Still, having read their reports I saw their progress being hampered by malformations of the EM field and disruptions caused by "background" energies. While their research is impressive (and I have kept up with their progress) they are still a long way away from a sustainable Fusion Reactor.
Another aspect of the design for my "ship" was the use of Helium as a conductive gas throughout the design and use of the ship. Helium lasers seemed to me to be very effective and versatile. In it's basic elemental form Helium is a remarkable element with many properties that would be useful in the design of a space going vessel. It is a stable element, non-toxic, abundant, and easily transmutable to different states. Other than being a medium for lasers, the Helium would also serve as a conductive material allowing for a predictable and stable distribution of power although I would couple it with Neon for the internal systems. Neon would be my preferred element to combine with Helium for the internal systems due to their similarity of functions and the ability to substitute Neon for most usages of Helium in an emergency. Finally, the reason I used Helium in my design is due to the ease by which Helium Plasma can be generated and utilized into the Fusion process. Since the element is the 2nd most abundant in the known universe, it could be harvested with ease from stray material floating through space. Since the primary power source and main weapon of the ship would be dependent on the plasma fueled Fusion Core, it made sense to use a medium that was both on hand and easily replaceable.
This now goes back to the primary system of my design, the Fusion Reactor. Helium Plasma is one of the mediums some researchers are using to create a fusion reaction. Hydrogen is by far the most desirable, but Helium is less volatile and easier to work with in many cases. Again I see that my design postulated theories and provided solutions that are now being put to work by the scientific community many decades later.
There were other systems I worked out in the vessel that were all codependent on each other. I just mentioned two of the many systems that work together to make the whole function. Another important element to the function of the whole was a Cyclotron. Honestly here I have to say that although it would work, advances have brought us more efficient Particle Accelerators that would work much better than my original design.
I will come back to this again later but I wanted to lay down the foundations. You see, I have theories and ideas that are not what could be called "mainstream" science. In fact, had I been old enough to publish my theories back in the 80's I would have been called a fool, ignorant, or simply ignored. Today though, I see that those long ago theories have born fruit as others have discovered what I found in my youth.
So you see here is the issue. A large part of me wants to write down all my observations, theories, and insights then send them to leading physicists. I believe that locked within my brain are avenues of research that could advance our understanding of the universe and leap us forward by several decades. While I mention only two of my old concepts that have come forward and been discovered by modern physicists, these are fairly small accomplishments compared the the possibility of my most extreme ideas. Am I suffering from Delusions of Grandeur by believing that locked within a mind not classically trained are the keys to understanding new aspects of physics? Am I delusional for looking back at my old designs and seeing their modern usage? I've been told by others that it isn't delusional but instead optimistic. I wonder though if some future physicist will be working on Rutherford's Law in his own research.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Why can't we all just get along?
I've watched people posting things on social media more frequently on social issues that involve a vast host of societal foibles. Who can use what bathroom? Who should be allowed to carry a gun? Where should guns be allowed? Are Republicans evil? Are Democrats idiots? Is the world burning? These are extreme arguments that many times break down to uncivil discourse.
Today I read a post about transgender bathroom usage article. The Article in question was a "conservative" pieces where women were stating they would be carrying guns in the bathroom from now on to protect themselves. A Transgender advocate responded to the article by saying they would disarm anyone carrying a gun in a restroom. I saw a hint of irony there. In fact, I saw the same kind of hypocrisy I often see when people on different sides of an issue act emotionally without thinking things through.
I have made my position on the transgender bathroom issue known. My position on the 2nd Amendment hasn't been delved but I am an avid supporter. The issue I saw here was a champion of rights was willing to ignore and penalize others for practicing one of theirs. Although this isn't something only seen with the current "bathroom bill" discussions, it is something I find all the time.
As a minister I carry a gun. Since I don't have a "brick and mortar" church (I conduct worship in living rooms), I often am wearing my gun at services. I don't know how many of my congregants have guns on them or if there are any in their houses. It isn't something I ask. Still, there are people out there who are filled with horror at the thought of a preacher with a gun. I have been told how "wrong" I am in carrying a gun much less proselytizing while armed. Other clergy have even told me bluntly that I am going to hell for doing such.
In politics I align myself with no party. I was brought up to weigh the value of the individual. For years, I didn't even know the party affiliation of my congressman, Rick Boucher (D), even though I was a staunch supporter. When I felt he turned against his constituents, I voted for "the other guy." I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I've written in the names of candidates and even "Micky Mouse" when there was nobody worth voting for.
When baby Bush was President I was called a Democrat when I criticized him. Now that Obama is President I am called a Republican because I criticize him as well. I have a great dislike of Hillary Clinton, and this has led people to call me a Republican and worse, a Fundamentalist. No matter who I would like to see elected there is always someone out there on one side or the other ready to label me their enemy and attack my education, knowledge, and even ethics.
I have a novel idea. How about we put on our big boy panties and just worry about ourselves. I'll discuss any topic a person wants to bring up as long at it stays a discussion and not an argument. Let's stand up for our beliefs but allow others the courtesy of having their own beliefs. Don't demean or condemn someone for disagreeing with you. Don't attack someone for expressing their opinions. Fascism is on the rise in American society.
Contrary to popular opinion, fascism isn't a conservative or liberal construct. Fascism is a means unto itself, it crosses political and ideological lines. We see fascism today in the violent protests led by Sander's supporters against Donald Trump. That's right, I said Sander's supporters. We see fascism in Washington DC where the lawmakers result to lies and shouting down opposition. In the Executive branch we see lawlessness and arrogance that can only exist in a Fascist state. With the rise of Black Lives Matters we see a street level fascism that has grown like a wildfire to burn down anything in it's way. Attorney Generals who are going after Exxon are using fascist techniques and being cheered on by crowds of activists who don't seem to see the end of the road they are pushing.
Let gay people marry. Let transgender people pee where they want. Let citizens carry guns when they feel the need. Let people reserve the right to refuse service when it violates their beliefs. Let people dispute climate science without fear of persecution. Make politicians stand on their own and quit voting for a Party. In other words, take responsibility for your life and let me be responsible for mine. Quit blaming others for life not working out for you. Quit trying to be everyone's mother and let people live their lives.
Today I read a post about transgender bathroom usage article. The Article in question was a "conservative" pieces where women were stating they would be carrying guns in the bathroom from now on to protect themselves. A Transgender advocate responded to the article by saying they would disarm anyone carrying a gun in a restroom. I saw a hint of irony there. In fact, I saw the same kind of hypocrisy I often see when people on different sides of an issue act emotionally without thinking things through.
I have made my position on the transgender bathroom issue known. My position on the 2nd Amendment hasn't been delved but I am an avid supporter. The issue I saw here was a champion of rights was willing to ignore and penalize others for practicing one of theirs. Although this isn't something only seen with the current "bathroom bill" discussions, it is something I find all the time.
As a minister I carry a gun. Since I don't have a "brick and mortar" church (I conduct worship in living rooms), I often am wearing my gun at services. I don't know how many of my congregants have guns on them or if there are any in their houses. It isn't something I ask. Still, there are people out there who are filled with horror at the thought of a preacher with a gun. I have been told how "wrong" I am in carrying a gun much less proselytizing while armed. Other clergy have even told me bluntly that I am going to hell for doing such.
In politics I align myself with no party. I was brought up to weigh the value of the individual. For years, I didn't even know the party affiliation of my congressman, Rick Boucher (D), even though I was a staunch supporter. When I felt he turned against his constituents, I voted for "the other guy." I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I've written in the names of candidates and even "Micky Mouse" when there was nobody worth voting for.
When baby Bush was President I was called a Democrat when I criticized him. Now that Obama is President I am called a Republican because I criticize him as well. I have a great dislike of Hillary Clinton, and this has led people to call me a Republican and worse, a Fundamentalist. No matter who I would like to see elected there is always someone out there on one side or the other ready to label me their enemy and attack my education, knowledge, and even ethics.
I have a novel idea. How about we put on our big boy panties and just worry about ourselves. I'll discuss any topic a person wants to bring up as long at it stays a discussion and not an argument. Let's stand up for our beliefs but allow others the courtesy of having their own beliefs. Don't demean or condemn someone for disagreeing with you. Don't attack someone for expressing their opinions. Fascism is on the rise in American society.
Contrary to popular opinion, fascism isn't a conservative or liberal construct. Fascism is a means unto itself, it crosses political and ideological lines. We see fascism today in the violent protests led by Sander's supporters against Donald Trump. That's right, I said Sander's supporters. We see fascism in Washington DC where the lawmakers result to lies and shouting down opposition. In the Executive branch we see lawlessness and arrogance that can only exist in a Fascist state. With the rise of Black Lives Matters we see a street level fascism that has grown like a wildfire to burn down anything in it's way. Attorney Generals who are going after Exxon are using fascist techniques and being cheered on by crowds of activists who don't seem to see the end of the road they are pushing.
Let gay people marry. Let transgender people pee where they want. Let citizens carry guns when they feel the need. Let people reserve the right to refuse service when it violates their beliefs. Let people dispute climate science without fear of persecution. Make politicians stand on their own and quit voting for a Party. In other words, take responsibility for your life and let me be responsible for mine. Quit blaming others for life not working out for you. Quit trying to be everyone's mother and let people live their lives.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Transgender and Bathroom Rights
I'm going to chime in on the whole bathroom vs transgender debate.
First off I want to make it clear that I can see both sides of the
argument. Second, I believe the solution is staring people in the face
but they don't, can't, or won't see it.
"Trans" people just want to use the bathroom without being called freaks, bullied, or given "the look". Yes, there are predators out there who will use the opportunity to enter the bathroom for perverted or otherwise malicious reasons. The issue facing people who are against transgenders using their identified bathroom get hung up on how to tell who are the "perverts". Unfortunately, when a "trans" person hears that argument they react negatively because they are used to being called perverts by these very same people. It isn't looking out for perverts, it's protecting against predators. This is something transgender people should be able to agree with.
Consider this, how are the police going to enforce a bathroom "ban"? I'll tell you right now that the first person who does a package check on me will end up on the tile in a pool of their own blood. Ever think that by trying to enforce these types of bans you are actually encouraging the predators who will act in the name of "just making sure"? Simple fact, I don't know of any study that links transgender individuals with any type of predatory personality disorder. This is the same situation as the myth of gays being predators, it just isn't true. You are probably more likely to be assaulted by someone of the same sex in a restroom than by a transgender individual. Truth be told you are more likely to be raped or assaulted OUTSIDE of a restroom than within.
I would have been pissed had a man gone into the bathroom where my daughter was while she was growing up. It's a father's natural reaction for his mind to go "there" whenever his child's safety is at stake. I can assume it's the same for all parents. That being said how was I to know if a man didn't? I've seen plenty of people who were totally androgynous in appearance and I never had a second thought about which bathroom they used. Simple logic tells me that my initial reaction was irrational, but I still have to accept that there is a human protective instinct that sometimes thinks the worst of others. The issue of women who are afraid of men I won't bother going into here. That's a whole psychological monster in itself.
Now I see the solution as an issue that involves society but the burden lies with architects. My brother just visited Bristol Motor Speedway this weekend and commented to me that they had four bathrooms. One was marked MALE, one FEMALE, one UNISEX, and one HANDICAPPED (guessing it was unisex as well). In today's society with men helping with the children more, unisex bathrooms are on the rise. We simply need more bathrooms that are unisex so it doesn't matter who uses them. In fact, they could cut down on the size of the "male and female" restrooms to accommodate more unisex and there wouldn't be an issue. I know some people will only use a restroom that is marked either male or female due to ingrained societal conditioning so we are a while away from going totally unisex in most major retailers and gathering places.
Think about this issue. Which side do you really stand on? I can understand the fear of the predator. I can understand the desire to pee without harassment. What are we willing to do to step off of the polarized ledges and begin walking toward a common ground? Do both sides need to give a little? Can we work out a solution where neither side has to compromise? Think about the solution, not the problem.
"Trans" people just want to use the bathroom without being called freaks, bullied, or given "the look". Yes, there are predators out there who will use the opportunity to enter the bathroom for perverted or otherwise malicious reasons. The issue facing people who are against transgenders using their identified bathroom get hung up on how to tell who are the "perverts". Unfortunately, when a "trans" person hears that argument they react negatively because they are used to being called perverts by these very same people. It isn't looking out for perverts, it's protecting against predators. This is something transgender people should be able to agree with.
Consider this, how are the police going to enforce a bathroom "ban"? I'll tell you right now that the first person who does a package check on me will end up on the tile in a pool of their own blood. Ever think that by trying to enforce these types of bans you are actually encouraging the predators who will act in the name of "just making sure"? Simple fact, I don't know of any study that links transgender individuals with any type of predatory personality disorder. This is the same situation as the myth of gays being predators, it just isn't true. You are probably more likely to be assaulted by someone of the same sex in a restroom than by a transgender individual. Truth be told you are more likely to be raped or assaulted OUTSIDE of a restroom than within.
I would have been pissed had a man gone into the bathroom where my daughter was while she was growing up. It's a father's natural reaction for his mind to go "there" whenever his child's safety is at stake. I can assume it's the same for all parents. That being said how was I to know if a man didn't? I've seen plenty of people who were totally androgynous in appearance and I never had a second thought about which bathroom they used. Simple logic tells me that my initial reaction was irrational, but I still have to accept that there is a human protective instinct that sometimes thinks the worst of others. The issue of women who are afraid of men I won't bother going into here. That's a whole psychological monster in itself.
Now I see the solution as an issue that involves society but the burden lies with architects. My brother just visited Bristol Motor Speedway this weekend and commented to me that they had four bathrooms. One was marked MALE, one FEMALE, one UNISEX, and one HANDICAPPED (guessing it was unisex as well). In today's society with men helping with the children more, unisex bathrooms are on the rise. We simply need more bathrooms that are unisex so it doesn't matter who uses them. In fact, they could cut down on the size of the "male and female" restrooms to accommodate more unisex and there wouldn't be an issue. I know some people will only use a restroom that is marked either male or female due to ingrained societal conditioning so we are a while away from going totally unisex in most major retailers and gathering places.
Think about this issue. Which side do you really stand on? I can understand the fear of the predator. I can understand the desire to pee without harassment. What are we willing to do to step off of the polarized ledges and begin walking toward a common ground? Do both sides need to give a little? Can we work out a solution where neither side has to compromise? Think about the solution, not the problem.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Climate Change and dealing with the Cult
I want to say a small bit about the Facebook disagreement I had today with someone on the acidification of the Ocean. The post in question was about ocean acidity increasing and the concerns people should have over this issue. I agreed and mentioned mitigation, being specific to mention Deep Iron Injection as a positive method. Having recently read the MIT research updates on their DII projects, I was encouraged by the results and happy that the science was properly tiered and being tested before they published the final results. Perhaps I made a mistake though when I decried the desire to approach the climate with an "all or nothing" approach as Senator Mark Warner has espoused for all issues in a very recent email reply to me.
For some reason the individual who posted the link took affront by my reply. He had the temerity to actually ask "what the hell is wrong" with me. He then went on to denounce my preferred method of mitigation. At first, he attacked it with links to a separate method that is in fact overly broad and not at all subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. The second post (yes, it was the same person who loves to spam links dealing with only superficially similar issues) did deal directly with the DII I espoused but he linked a political policy document that used scientific data from 2001-2007 which was not only out of date but in itself admitted to being incomplete.
I honestly have gotten tired of discussing scientific topics with people only to find after substantial time that they don't have the basic understanding of science or even proper methodology to intelligently discuss the matter. I was reminded of the argument where his "expert" friend claimed the Scientific Method couldn't be followed in Climate Science. Something he agreed with but leading scientists disagree with and I share their disdain for that type of "flat earth" science. I tried to correct his erroneous blending of methods and get him to look into the actual current research and put forward an invitation for him to lay out his own basis of scientific understanding so I would know how to address his concerns. Remembering the old discussion where his expert claimed familiarity with the UHA research but yet was ignorant of the authors position on Climate Change, I mentioned that previous exchange and said that he should make sure of his facts before jumping into a debate.
As typical, the individual attacked not my position but my intelligence... another of his tropes that he loves pointing out in others but refuses to see himself use. In his several posts regarding the issue, he asked an expert to chime in, an associate professor and renown meteorologist who just so happened to be the same one who ignores the Scientific Method and claims anyone not a Climate Scientist has no say in the matter. Upon recognizing the name, I remembered he was the EXACT SAME PERSON who claimed to have a personal connection with one of the two UHA researchers we had previously discussed regarding this very issue. Mind you, this intimate personal knowledge apparently doesn't extend to the researcher's views on the Cult of Climate Change... so I called him a fraud.
How can someone claim this personal connection but yet be ignorant of the individual's expertise in the very field that you claim expertise yourself? Experts in a closed community almost certainly know one another and their positions. His lack of knowledge here made me think him either a fraud in not being who he claimed, or being a fraud within the Cult whose claims are bolstered by political muscle instead of scientific study and merit.
I'll note here that at the same time the poster's wife asked me for my educational basis so that I could discuss this knowledgeably. I gave a generalized overview of my education. I didn't mention getting my first professional certification at the age of 14 nor did I give specific certifications, titles, or degrees but instead gave a general rundown of my education from the age of 12 to current. His wife posted hers as well although she was very specific with even class names. I was shocked to learn that she was several years my junior based upon her graduation date until I remembered I was two years younger than average upon graduation. I sent her a PM congratulating her on her education. I didn't point out to her that my education continues as she ended hers. I thought that she was rightfully proud of her education but unlike myself it seems she has ceased her education and settled into her sedate life. I felt it was a pity.
Her husband, the poster, took offense that I dared to doubt his expert. I made a mistake and posted the wrong name of the two UHA researchers as to who I had quoted on the post from 5 months ago. At the time I didn't realize I had named the wrong member of the pair. Still, we entered a scathing argument where I tried to get him to go back and see where his expert had finally failed to support his argument and had resulted to his "if you aren't a Climate Scientist you have no say" argument. The oddity is that he has never explained what he thinks a Climate Scientist is. In fact, both the expert and the poster have claimed the expert holds positions and titles that don't reconcile with the university or public profiles of the scientist in question. This is still something that makes me suspicious. On the internet one can claim to be anything and this expert sets off all my alarms by claiming to teach classes at the university where he's not listed as the professor. My own background makes me believe either he is a simple internet fraud or a narcissistic elitist with delusions of grandeur. If he is the real scientist, then his mental instability would make any conclusions he arrives at suspicious in that he would be unable to accept any evidence that would not conform to his thesis.
Having written that last sentence I realized something. Perhaps he isn't the internet fraud I thought. Perhaps he is who he claims to be but through elitist narcissism he is driven to make claims that are exaggerations of the truth. Perhaps he does know the other scientist but only in passing instead of the intimate knowledge to which he eluded. If I think about him as if he were an archetype this hypothesis makes sense. Perhaps the original poster simply doesn't realize that his expert "friend" bloats his own importance beyond the truth. He is quite probably highly intelligent but socially dysfunctional. I am beginning to get a clear picture of the "liberal elitist college professor" that I suspect him to be. If my guess is correct, the scientist and poster met online in a political discussion and flattered each others ego into becoming online friends. While he would be unlikely to accept anyone on an intellectual level as an online friend he would certainly accept those he saw a politically elite as himself. Of course this is all only conjecture and on the fly since I just thought of it and have never met the individual in person.
Anyway, I'll get to the end. The poster again decided that discussing the issue wasn't worth it and resulted to taunts and demands. His utter glee and insistence that his friend "kicked your ass" in the last exchange that I decided to leave the discussion. His repeated use of the phrase "I win" got to me. I told him that he can crow about winning all he wants and that I was leaving the discussion. Since he was already insulting me, I told him to feel free to denigrate me online as much as he wishes. To me it reveals a lot about his character and honestly I'm "enough of an asshole" to not care once he get's to that point.
He finally must have realized I had left because he eventually took my advice and looked for that old post on his timeline. Predictably, he did find it and even posted a link to it. The problem was that it revealed my mistake in naming the wrong co-author. He latched onto that mistake of mine as proof that my entire argument was void. I continued to read his posts although I wouldn't reply. It was like watching a small child revel in winning a contest in which only he was competing. I did send him a PM acknowledging my mistake in the name. I felt it only right.
After re-reading the post he linked though I saw that not only did I make his expert seem like a novice in the field, but another shared friend had come along behind and took it even further. Both the poster and his friend were shown to be ignorant elitist with no real grasp of the topic but they also showed the ability to be completely oblivious to their own words and contradictions. This is the same person I have wondered about being too toxic. Normally I find these people entertaining because eventually reality sets in. With the poster in question, even when all evidence proves him wrong he simply ignores it and switches the argument around to something nobody was even speaking about.
For some reason the individual who posted the link took affront by my reply. He had the temerity to actually ask "what the hell is wrong" with me. He then went on to denounce my preferred method of mitigation. At first, he attacked it with links to a separate method that is in fact overly broad and not at all subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. The second post (yes, it was the same person who loves to spam links dealing with only superficially similar issues) did deal directly with the DII I espoused but he linked a political policy document that used scientific data from 2001-2007 which was not only out of date but in itself admitted to being incomplete.
I honestly have gotten tired of discussing scientific topics with people only to find after substantial time that they don't have the basic understanding of science or even proper methodology to intelligently discuss the matter. I was reminded of the argument where his "expert" friend claimed the Scientific Method couldn't be followed in Climate Science. Something he agreed with but leading scientists disagree with and I share their disdain for that type of "flat earth" science. I tried to correct his erroneous blending of methods and get him to look into the actual current research and put forward an invitation for him to lay out his own basis of scientific understanding so I would know how to address his concerns. Remembering the old discussion where his expert claimed familiarity with the UHA research but yet was ignorant of the authors position on Climate Change, I mentioned that previous exchange and said that he should make sure of his facts before jumping into a debate.
As typical, the individual attacked not my position but my intelligence... another of his tropes that he loves pointing out in others but refuses to see himself use. In his several posts regarding the issue, he asked an expert to chime in, an associate professor and renown meteorologist who just so happened to be the same one who ignores the Scientific Method and claims anyone not a Climate Scientist has no say in the matter. Upon recognizing the name, I remembered he was the EXACT SAME PERSON who claimed to have a personal connection with one of the two UHA researchers we had previously discussed regarding this very issue. Mind you, this intimate personal knowledge apparently doesn't extend to the researcher's views on the Cult of Climate Change... so I called him a fraud.
How can someone claim this personal connection but yet be ignorant of the individual's expertise in the very field that you claim expertise yourself? Experts in a closed community almost certainly know one another and their positions. His lack of knowledge here made me think him either a fraud in not being who he claimed, or being a fraud within the Cult whose claims are bolstered by political muscle instead of scientific study and merit.
I'll note here that at the same time the poster's wife asked me for my educational basis so that I could discuss this knowledgeably. I gave a generalized overview of my education. I didn't mention getting my first professional certification at the age of 14 nor did I give specific certifications, titles, or degrees but instead gave a general rundown of my education from the age of 12 to current. His wife posted hers as well although she was very specific with even class names. I was shocked to learn that she was several years my junior based upon her graduation date until I remembered I was two years younger than average upon graduation. I sent her a PM congratulating her on her education. I didn't point out to her that my education continues as she ended hers. I thought that she was rightfully proud of her education but unlike myself it seems she has ceased her education and settled into her sedate life. I felt it was a pity.
Her husband, the poster, took offense that I dared to doubt his expert. I made a mistake and posted the wrong name of the two UHA researchers as to who I had quoted on the post from 5 months ago. At the time I didn't realize I had named the wrong member of the pair. Still, we entered a scathing argument where I tried to get him to go back and see where his expert had finally failed to support his argument and had resulted to his "if you aren't a Climate Scientist you have no say" argument. The oddity is that he has never explained what he thinks a Climate Scientist is. In fact, both the expert and the poster have claimed the expert holds positions and titles that don't reconcile with the university or public profiles of the scientist in question. This is still something that makes me suspicious. On the internet one can claim to be anything and this expert sets off all my alarms by claiming to teach classes at the university where he's not listed as the professor. My own background makes me believe either he is a simple internet fraud or a narcissistic elitist with delusions of grandeur. If he is the real scientist, then his mental instability would make any conclusions he arrives at suspicious in that he would be unable to accept any evidence that would not conform to his thesis.
Having written that last sentence I realized something. Perhaps he isn't the internet fraud I thought. Perhaps he is who he claims to be but through elitist narcissism he is driven to make claims that are exaggerations of the truth. Perhaps he does know the other scientist but only in passing instead of the intimate knowledge to which he eluded. If I think about him as if he were an archetype this hypothesis makes sense. Perhaps the original poster simply doesn't realize that his expert "friend" bloats his own importance beyond the truth. He is quite probably highly intelligent but socially dysfunctional. I am beginning to get a clear picture of the "liberal elitist college professor" that I suspect him to be. If my guess is correct, the scientist and poster met online in a political discussion and flattered each others ego into becoming online friends. While he would be unlikely to accept anyone on an intellectual level as an online friend he would certainly accept those he saw a politically elite as himself. Of course this is all only conjecture and on the fly since I just thought of it and have never met the individual in person.
Anyway, I'll get to the end. The poster again decided that discussing the issue wasn't worth it and resulted to taunts and demands. His utter glee and insistence that his friend "kicked your ass" in the last exchange that I decided to leave the discussion. His repeated use of the phrase "I win" got to me. I told him that he can crow about winning all he wants and that I was leaving the discussion. Since he was already insulting me, I told him to feel free to denigrate me online as much as he wishes. To me it reveals a lot about his character and honestly I'm "enough of an asshole" to not care once he get's to that point.
He finally must have realized I had left because he eventually took my advice and looked for that old post on his timeline. Predictably, he did find it and even posted a link to it. The problem was that it revealed my mistake in naming the wrong co-author. He latched onto that mistake of mine as proof that my entire argument was void. I continued to read his posts although I wouldn't reply. It was like watching a small child revel in winning a contest in which only he was competing. I did send him a PM acknowledging my mistake in the name. I felt it only right.
After re-reading the post he linked though I saw that not only did I make his expert seem like a novice in the field, but another shared friend had come along behind and took it even further. Both the poster and his friend were shown to be ignorant elitist with no real grasp of the topic but they also showed the ability to be completely oblivious to their own words and contradictions. This is the same person I have wondered about being too toxic. Normally I find these people entertaining because eventually reality sets in. With the poster in question, even when all evidence proves him wrong he simply ignores it and switches the argument around to something nobody was even speaking about.
Debates and time
I am going to revive my blogging and stop using my computer journal. I've lost the journal twice and have decided that this platform is fine for what I intend to post. I know there has been quite a lapse but here we go.
Today, as usual, I ended up carrying on multiple debates on Facebook with many different people. While a few of them turned out in the typical fashion, there was one that was educational for those involved and another that had someone admitting there was nothing factual to their opposition to Trump but it was personal... maybe me telling them that it was okay to feel emotional or personal about a candidate is quite alright. One is still hanging out there but I don't know if the people have left it or will respond later.
Still, I was debating something that has irked me since the story became public two days ago. A woman wrote a letter claiming to be a major individual working within a campaign. Her letter went on to explain how she had supported that candidate until recently. It was an "open letter" that was a hit job on the candidate full of supposed facts and revelations that could derail a candidate. The problem is, I decided to research the person instead of the article. The woman in question has been openly against the candidate specifically in her personal life for at least 6 months and her professional social media accounts reveal that she was latently against the candidate. This brought her claim of being part of his organization into doubt so I checked out her employment history. She never worked for the politician in question. Her resume says she worked for a PAC in the past, her resume didn't specify a name which I found curious. Apparently, she is currently unemployed but volunteers her time locally.
Take these two simple facts that she opposed the candidate for at least the last six months and that she never worked for the candidate as she claimed and her story unravels to the point of pure fiction. The problem I run into, half the liberals on my feed post links to some article with her letter claiming it is true. Of course I reply with what I have found out. Even on the "Occupy Democrats" facebook page I found people who saw my research and admitted that the woman was obviously lying for publicity. I began to see other posts with this story with people spreading my research as well as some information I hadn't discovered. Putting it all together, the woman appears to have been professionally hurt by this candidate and the letter wasn't only for publicity but also for simple vengeance. I knew some fanatics, those without reason, and those who hated the candidate would believe anything so I was prepared to repeat the process of education and hope for the best.
Today though someone I have respect for posted another article. I simply posted the same information about her background and expected his intelligence to lead him to the truth. Instead the post devolved into him disputing my research and trying to link the candidate to criminal behavior. When I pointed out to him that his position was ironic because while he refuses to believe in the criminal behavior of one candidate that is under FBI investigation, he was quick to believe the rumor of the other candidate's theoretical illegal activity, he through out the red herring defense and stood like a blind rooster above a roasting pan crowing about how "he wins". He then insulted me and told me to just "quit posting right now".
Needless to say, it tweaked me. This is a man who prides himself on using reputable sources but I had pointed out to him that his article citing criminal activity came from a well known liberal leaning site, NPR. Although NPR was founded to be nonpartisan, it long ago lost the right to claim impartiality. I proceeded to open a simple google search and started linking articles with quotes for him to read. Prefacing this argument, I explained the problem with NPR. They are blindly "liberal leaning" and believe all reporters are the same. With one exception, they have a huge problem with their reporters keeping their bias and opinions out of the news. I shared about 6 or 7 links backing up my position and then realized I was at the bottom of the google search page. Proper debate form says time to go no further and give him a chance for rebuttal.
After this barrage of articles, the man who claims he is a speed reader who has shown he can post as many as 6 article links in 5 minutes while claiming to have read them has yet to respond. At this point it's been about an hour and he hasn't responded but it is in his nature to always "get the last word" and never leaves a post, even one he agrees with, to follow his at the end of a topic. I had another discussion with him earlier today in which he claimed a couple of times that he "won" and went off the rails. There is absolutely 0 possibility that he would leave this alone so I'm sure he's trying to scour the internet for something to dispute my arguments and most likely he will try to either ignore my point or totally misconstrue what I've said to prove a different point. The irony that he likes to quote common literary and political mistakes while constantly using them seems lost to him and his wife.
I sometimes wonder why I engage in discussions with him because they always end up in one of two ways. Either he insults me and cries winner or he completely twists, misunderstands, or ignores my points so they fit whatever argument he makes. Part of me wonders if he is a toxic part of my life and someone I need to cut out or if the mental exercise he sometimes invokes is worth the childish rebuttal and rhetoric.
Today, as usual, I ended up carrying on multiple debates on Facebook with many different people. While a few of them turned out in the typical fashion, there was one that was educational for those involved and another that had someone admitting there was nothing factual to their opposition to Trump but it was personal... maybe me telling them that it was okay to feel emotional or personal about a candidate is quite alright. One is still hanging out there but I don't know if the people have left it or will respond later.
Still, I was debating something that has irked me since the story became public two days ago. A woman wrote a letter claiming to be a major individual working within a campaign. Her letter went on to explain how she had supported that candidate until recently. It was an "open letter" that was a hit job on the candidate full of supposed facts and revelations that could derail a candidate. The problem is, I decided to research the person instead of the article. The woman in question has been openly against the candidate specifically in her personal life for at least 6 months and her professional social media accounts reveal that she was latently against the candidate. This brought her claim of being part of his organization into doubt so I checked out her employment history. She never worked for the politician in question. Her resume says she worked for a PAC in the past, her resume didn't specify a name which I found curious. Apparently, she is currently unemployed but volunteers her time locally.
Take these two simple facts that she opposed the candidate for at least the last six months and that she never worked for the candidate as she claimed and her story unravels to the point of pure fiction. The problem I run into, half the liberals on my feed post links to some article with her letter claiming it is true. Of course I reply with what I have found out. Even on the "Occupy Democrats" facebook page I found people who saw my research and admitted that the woman was obviously lying for publicity. I began to see other posts with this story with people spreading my research as well as some information I hadn't discovered. Putting it all together, the woman appears to have been professionally hurt by this candidate and the letter wasn't only for publicity but also for simple vengeance. I knew some fanatics, those without reason, and those who hated the candidate would believe anything so I was prepared to repeat the process of education and hope for the best.
Today though someone I have respect for posted another article. I simply posted the same information about her background and expected his intelligence to lead him to the truth. Instead the post devolved into him disputing my research and trying to link the candidate to criminal behavior. When I pointed out to him that his position was ironic because while he refuses to believe in the criminal behavior of one candidate that is under FBI investigation, he was quick to believe the rumor of the other candidate's theoretical illegal activity, he through out the red herring defense and stood like a blind rooster above a roasting pan crowing about how "he wins". He then insulted me and told me to just "quit posting right now".
Needless to say, it tweaked me. This is a man who prides himself on using reputable sources but I had pointed out to him that his article citing criminal activity came from a well known liberal leaning site, NPR. Although NPR was founded to be nonpartisan, it long ago lost the right to claim impartiality. I proceeded to open a simple google search and started linking articles with quotes for him to read. Prefacing this argument, I explained the problem with NPR. They are blindly "liberal leaning" and believe all reporters are the same. With one exception, they have a huge problem with their reporters keeping their bias and opinions out of the news. I shared about 6 or 7 links backing up my position and then realized I was at the bottom of the google search page. Proper debate form says time to go no further and give him a chance for rebuttal.
After this barrage of articles, the man who claims he is a speed reader who has shown he can post as many as 6 article links in 5 minutes while claiming to have read them has yet to respond. At this point it's been about an hour and he hasn't responded but it is in his nature to always "get the last word" and never leaves a post, even one he agrees with, to follow his at the end of a topic. I had another discussion with him earlier today in which he claimed a couple of times that he "won" and went off the rails. There is absolutely 0 possibility that he would leave this alone so I'm sure he's trying to scour the internet for something to dispute my arguments and most likely he will try to either ignore my point or totally misconstrue what I've said to prove a different point. The irony that he likes to quote common literary and political mistakes while constantly using them seems lost to him and his wife.
I sometimes wonder why I engage in discussions with him because they always end up in one of two ways. Either he insults me and cries winner or he completely twists, misunderstands, or ignores my points so they fit whatever argument he makes. Part of me wonders if he is a toxic part of my life and someone I need to cut out or if the mental exercise he sometimes invokes is worth the childish rebuttal and rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)