Mr. Sinister Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 I think I said this in the rtt once, but I refer to them all as the "Billy dun" channels. As to what Billy actually dun, the show topics usually cover that, whether it be "Billy dun caught Bigfoot!" or "Billy dun got possessed!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 (Billy never dun catch Bigfoot, or get possessed, or find the earth is flat cause it’s for people who drool when they sit still) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malapropismic Depository Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 On 2/24/2020 at 8:31 AM, CousinsCowgirl84 said: possibly there are other ways to test his hypothesis that are safer. It doesn’t make him less of a scientist though. NASA has acted recklessly many many times, but they are still considered to be a respected science agency. On 2/24/2020 at 8:50 AM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: You’re ****ing with me, right? Anyone can be scientist. There are loose definitions of scientist. Just like, anyone can get the title of "Reverend" with little time or effort or qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 47 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said: Anyone can be scientist. Ok fine, for the sake of conversation let’s say that any dumbass can be a scientist. Not every scientist is a dumbass though. The notion that there’s no difference between **** for brains and NASA’s scientists is imbecilic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Ok fine, for the sake of conversation let’s say that any dumbass can be a scientist. Not every scientist is a dumbass though. The notion that there’s no difference between **** for brains and NASA’s scientists is imbecilic. did you know that NASA allowed a shuttle with several people on board to launch despite knowing that o-rings used on the space craft were not good for use in cold weather? And that the o ring failed killing everyone on board? That was more reckless than a failed parachute, IMO... I didn’t say there was no difference between NASA and this guy. But calling him reckless as an excuse to call him retarded is foolish. Scientists do reckless things. can you build a steam engine capable of flight? Didn’t think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: But calling him reckless as an excuse to call him retarded is foolish. I called him **** for brains because he thought the earth was flat. I'd feel a lot differently about the whole episode if not for that. 1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: can you build a steam engine capable of flight? Didn’t think so. I never have but I just looked it up and it definitely doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 13 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: I called him **** for brains because he thought the earth was flat. he said he though the earth was flat. Then built a steam powered vessel capable of controlled flight and got a tv channel to put him on air. His parachute failed. Happens to base jumpers and Wing suit flyers with regular frequency... yet no one is celebrating their death. And all they did was jump out a plane. This guy made something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Malapropismic Depository said: Anyone can be scientist. There are loose definitions of scientist. Just like, anyone can get the title of "Reverend" with little time or effort or qualifications. Not sure if you are joking. At the heart of science is a peer review process by experts. Mentos and a coke bottle isn't science even if it's shown on the Science Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 God I hate the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry.Randolphe Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 19 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Mentos and a coke bottle isn't science even if it's shown on the Science Channel. Well ****.....*removes 'scientist' from resume* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 16 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: God I hate the internet. It's a collection of tubes. Science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 26 minutes ago, Corcaigh said: Mentos and a coke bottle isn't science Science denier! Im training you to hate the internet too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 19 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Science denier! Im training you to hate the internet too. No, I've reached enlightenment and am a permanent resident on the smug part of the internet. Aside from having to put in a solid 8 hours each day judging inferior people, it's a good life. A happy life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: did you know that NASA allowed a shuttle with several people on board to launch despite knowing that o-rings used on the space craft were not good for use in cold weather? And that the o ring failed killing everyone on board? That was more reckless than a failed parachute, IMO... Yeah everyone knows this it was a national tragedy and it caused fundamental changes to how some things were done. what’s the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 8 hours ago, tshile said: Yeah everyone knows this it was a national tragedy and it caused fundamental changes to how some things were done. what’s the point? I made the point in the rest of the post you chose not to quote. Someone said the guy was too reckless to be a inspiration. The point is that ain’t true. Many scientists are reckless. The best ones are very reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoshuaj Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 29 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: I made the point in the rest of the post you chose not to quote. Someone said the guy was too reckless to be a inspiration. The point is that ain’t true. Many scientists are reckless. The best ones are very reckless. Someone has been watching too many Hulk/Green Goblin reruns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 My cousin thought her neighbors were funneling gas into her house at night and replacing her children with clones. She decided to test her hypothesis by drugging them, strapping them into a car, and then putting it into neutral and letting it roll down a hill into a lake... SCIENCE!! They should name a middle school after her. Also, science relies on observations being repeatable. We should strap a bunch more flat earthers into homemade rockets and see if we can get the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 41 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: I made the point in the rest of the post you chose not to quote. Someone said the guy was too reckless to be a inspiration. The point is that ain’t true. Many scientists are reckless. The best ones are very reckless. What? no. That’s not right at all the issue is you compared a guy that killed himself defying mountains of science to people who were at the forefront of creating a lot of important science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 1 minute ago, tshile said: What? no. That’s not right at all the issue is you compared a guy that killed himself defying mountains of science to people who were at the forefront of creating a lot of important science In terms of recklessness determining whether or not they are an inspiration in scientific pursuits. I said he was an inspiration to rocket enthusiasts, someone else posted that no he wasn't, he was reckless. I pointed out NASA, who I think we can agree is respected (an inspiration) was just as reckless if not more reckless than this guy. You should read what both of us wrote and not just one quote at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 I’ve read what you wrote. I think it’s wrong. no nasa wasn’t just as reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 19 minutes ago, stoshuaj said: Someone has been watching too many Hulk/Green Goblin reruns Marie Currie and the Write brothers were also incredibly reckless. Just now, tshile said: no nasa wasn’t just as reckless. You don’t think launching people to their death despite a known flaw in a component in your space ship is reckless? Or failing to properly inspect the heat shielding on your reentry vessel, despite it being relatively to do? Those things were incredibly reckless because they put an entire space program at risk and endangers (and ultimately killed) multiple people. On he other hand, this guy build a steam powered rocket, his parachute failed, and he only risked his own life. Im not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he is more reckless than NASA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: You don’t think launching people to their death despite a known flaw in a component in your space ship is reckless? I think you don’t know as much as you think you do about the feynman investigation and all those projects if you think this guy’s on the same level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, tshile said: I think you don’t know as much as you think you do about the feynman investigation and all those projects if you think this guy’s on the same level i don’t think he is on the same level, I think he is less reckless. But the point is both activists may be reckless, but that doesn’t mean they cant be inspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 Hindsight is always 20/20. Fact, if this **** for brains knew his parachute was going to deploy on lift off then he would have secured it better. Same with NASA and their O rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted February 26, 2020 Share Posted February 26, 2020 3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said: Marie Currie and the Write brothers were also incredibly reckless. You don’t think launching people to their death despite a known flaw in a component in your space ship is reckless? Or failing to properly inspect the heat shielding on your reentry vessel, despite it being relatively to do? Those things were incredibly reckless because they put an entire space program at risk and endangers (and ultimately killed) multiple people. On he other hand, this guy build a steam powered rocket, his parachute failed, and he only risked his own life. Im not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he is more reckless than NASA... Someone tell me what this is called. How she frames an argument to try and sell her case in such a dishonest way. Examples being - “Launching people to their death” when obviously NASA didn’t know they were going to kill people before they did it. Intentionally making it sound like NASA knew they were going to kill people without saying as much. But it then turn around and say - “Only risked his own life” when the truth of the matter is he risked his life for something that had been proven by science before he was even born. He was sick. There was never going to be anything gained from this in the first place and we all knew that. Totally pointless endeavor. Completely and utterly a waste of time. Needless and wasteful and his life was the price for it. whats that called? That kind of lying without actually telling a lie? There has to be a word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.