KurtGodel77
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KurtGodel77
-
-
What disturbed me about these tactics was that they were trying to break down people's religious beliefs. WWII anti-Nazi propaganda was later broadened to a general attack on Western Civilization. This attack on the Muslim religion, if successful, will be broadened to an attack on all religions.
-
-
If this is true, it is probably due to coaching.
I am a HUGE fan of Wade as a DC. He forgot more than Gray knows at this stage of his career.
As for the talent I agree that Bruce was a difference maker, but so is Takeo (to a lesser degree of course) imo, and our secondary is now clearly superior.
I have to agree with your assessment of Wade as a DC.
-
-
Go review this thread and Tom's and my specific arguments with Schroeder.
I believe I've already addressed those arguments. Again, if I've missed any, let me know.
The insults precede and follow the arguments. Think of it like a scientific sandwich. One that you can't swallow.Your arguments are indeed hard to swallow.
I have nothing against Warner as a QB. (Time to move this to the football board Ken.) Coughlin was a moron to put Manning in this year- Warner was perfectly adequate, and certainly better than Manning. As far as coming to the Bills, if Losman is ready, I'd rather have him start and Bledsoe be the backup. Warner would be a short term band-aid for the QB position. I'd want a longer term solution. If Losman is not yet ready, and Bledsoe is out of Buffalo, Warner would not be my first choice, but he'd be OK.The Warner section sounds rational enough. I'm not sure that Losman is ready, because there's a difference between studying film and actually throwing the ball in practice. With that broken leg, he might need more practice time before he's ready. But the coaches are obviously in a better position to evaluate his progress than I am.
-
Don't passive voice that. It's only after Warner made his faith an issue that people started to dislike him. His in your face football-JC combination is obnoxious. That's why I dislike him. Do you think he was benched because of his JC theatrics? Never mind... I know... "Ask a Sports psychologist PhD."
You have now reached a point in this thread where you have ignored over 90% of the points made by other people refuting your arguments. The best you can hope for is that a moderator will lock this out so you can't continue to embarrass yourself (in this thread).
I'm sorry, but I don't consider an accusation like "you are stupid" or "you don't understand Shroeder's theories" to be a stunning refutation of any point I've made. If I've failed to address an issue where someone was actually making a valid, supported point, let me know, and I'll deal with it.
As for Warner, at least you're admitting that your dislike for the man has to do with his faith. Personally, I like the idea of rooting for a guy who was a complete underdog. A guy who's spent time bagging groceries probably appreciates his NFL opportunity a little more than a pampered first round pick like Ryan Leaf.
-
Come to think of it, I was a Warner fan long before I learned he was a Christian. Here was a guy who reached rock bottom, who was bagging groceries for crying out loud. When he finally got his chance, he stepped onto the field and played without fear. He carved up defenses like a hot knife through butter. I think that anyone can admire a guy like that, and it's only after his Christian faith became an issue that I've noticed some people starting to dislike him.
-
It's a miracle that curiousity survives formal education.
-some wannabe physicist
I've never seen someone so in love with a degree in my life. You are really out of touch brother.
I know PhDs from several schools, including 2 MIT PhDs. Some are smart. Some are dumb. The smart ones, believe it or not, get published, work hard, and get critical acclaim. At least some of the dumb ones are pompous windbags who try to convince stupid people that their degree entitles them to accolades.
Dodge. Dodge. Dodge. You've ignored a substantive argument on this topic for at least 8 replies, and you keep reframing your issues, but you are still wrong at every turn.
To sum up:
1) You don't understand Shroeder's theories.
2) You can't engage in a dialog about them.
2a) You can't address the holes in Schroeder's theories.
3) You believe Schroeder because he's (maybe) a PhD physicist from MIT.
3a) You would follow a PhD from a good school's word on anything.
4) You believe Genisis is right that the world was created in 6 days... err 24 hour periods.
5) You like Kurt Warner because he doesn't suck as much as Bledsoe... or because he is a super-Christian, or both.
Ever think of taking piano lessons from Schroder? He plays a mean piano. Of course, he doesn't have a music PhD.
Some of this is just wild accusation, and the Warner comment is simply irrelevant. You talk about holes in Schroeder's theory, but what you really mean is that no current scientific theory can explain the passage of time at the exact instant the Big Bang took place. If Shroeder didn't have a degree you'd accuse him of not knowing anything. Given that he has a PhD in physics from MIT, you accuse him of . . . not knowing anything, and you accuse me of being in love with degrees. There is no pleasing you, because you have concluded in advance that Shroeder's theories are wrong.
-
Give me a break...my crack about your views on Schroeder is hyperbole, obviously, but you've written MUCH more on the other topics than you're quoting. That you conveniently choose to quote only the least obnoxious of your posts is...convenient.
And even though I say my crack on Schroeder is hyperbole...you seem to believe he's solved four distinct theoretical physics problems in one hard-cover book, which would make him the preeminent physicist of our time. It's not even that much hyperbole. Not that you'd comprehend that, as you seem completely incapable of anything remotely resembling critical thought. Why don't you just get it over with and join a cult already?
Problem is, I am capable of critical thought, which is why I don't accept your accusations against me . . . uncritically. Or indeed at all.
Yes, I've written a lot on the topics I'm quoting, and no, there wasn't space to quote everything I'd written. If I've written something much more "obnoxious" about those subjects, go ahead and quote it. If you can't do so, I suggest you admit you're wrong. Which you are.
-
Calling him Jay Schroeder was probably a complement. Read the posts: I was clearly playing on your boy's name. Gerald is commonly shortened to Jay. But hey, don't take my word for that. Go find a linguist PhD to explain it to you.
Still no answer on your take of the Bible? Still no answer on your love affair with Jesus Warner(1) having something to do with this?
And again, you really love the credentials don't you? I know a lot of science PhDs because of what I do for a living. Some are brialliant. Others are morons. Hanging a piece of paper on your wall means you worked hard enough for X years to get a degree. Don't confuse that with what someone did post-degree, or with their intelligence. If he's a brilliant physicist, he would be recognized as such by his peers. And is he? Well?
No. Who recognizes his "brilliance"? People like you.
(1) Jesus Warner is not a QB in the NFL, in case you want to do the "pompous" dance again.
There really isn't a lot here for me to respond to. I point out that Warner's QB rating was ten points higher than Bledsoe's, and suddenly I get accused of being in love with the guy. Your point about science PhDs might be true for someone with a PhD from Wannabe U, but less applicable to someone with a PhD from MIT.
-
-
I'm saying that back in '99, I had confidence our defense would come through in clutch situations. I never had that confidence in our defense this year.
-
Intersting website on the Universe and the expansion of it...One things I've always had a hard time picturing is what is the Universe expanding into...If you were able to get to the edge of the universe what would you see...Sounds stupid I know but just one of those things I can't picture...Universe
You are unwise to use a phrase like "sounds stupid," at least not on a thread like this! DC Tom will come along and say something like, "What you said sounds stupid because it is stupid, just as you are stupid. In fact, anyone who has ever disagreed with me about whether Ilya Ehrenburg was or wasn't a Soviet propaganda minister is an absolute idiot. Come to think of it, just about the only time I get to see someone whose intelligence I respect is when I look in the mirror."
-
At first it seemed like he was joking, but after a while I got the impression that he was actually confused between Jay Schroeder--the QB for the Raiders when we hammered them in the AFC Championship game--and Gerald Schroeder. If he was STILL on the Jay Schroeder "joke," it was clearly a case of pursuing a joke long after it had lost whatever humor it had had.
-
What I wrote about FDR:
The official American policy of unconditional surrender did not benefit America whatsoever. On the contrary, had the German generals succeeded in overthrowing Hitler, peace with Germany would have ended a painful European war several years early, while reducing the danger the Soviet Union posed in the postwar period. In addition, getting rid of Hitler in 1942 or 1943 would have prevented further human rights violations by Hitler, and would have prevented the Soviet genocide against the German people. Allied extermination bombings directed against the people of Germany could also have been avoided. Roosevelt's decision to discourage the German resistance--and therefore strengthen Hitler's hold on power--demonstrates that Hitler's human rights record was not a major factor in Roosevelt's decision to wage war. This attitude comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with FDR's reaction to the various Soviet genocides. Unfortunately, saving the lives of brave and idealistic American soldiers was not a priority for FDR either. Had the German generals overthrown Hitler, the European war would clearly no longer have been necessary, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brave young men could have been avoided. Had FDR offered an honorable peace to a de-Nazified Germany, more generals would almost certainly have joined in the plot to overthrow Hitler.Your interpretation: "Stalin is a stooge of FDR."
What I wrote about Kurt Warner:
Kurt's QB rating is ten points higher than Drew's. Kurt didn't have an offensive line down in NY; while Drew's line came together to provide good pass protection for all but the first six games or so. It's safe to say that Kurt did a lot more with a lot less. He seems to be well on his way back to being the player who'd cut up opposing defenses like a man among boys.Your interpretation: "Warner's the greatest quarterback in the league right now."
What I wrote about Schroeder:
As for Schroeder, I believe I've already addressed the issue of his qualifications by pointing out he's a former MIT physics professor. The types of calculations necessary to support his theory--such as calculating the speed of the universe's expansion using red shift, calculating the relativistic effect that said expansion would have on the passage of time, etc.--seem well within the ability of any qualified physics professor, let alone one from MIT.Your interpretation: "Gerald Schroeder is the premire physicist of our era."
I'm delighted that my posts don't go away. It means I get to correct gross misinterpretations such as yours.
-
-
Don't answer my questions RE the Bible. No matter. Although your love of Kurt "Jesus helps me win" Warner makes sense in the context of this thread. He's such a holier than thou pr1ck.
Jay Schroeder was always a joke. He still is. And in case this is news to you, because it seems to be, getting a PhD doesn't overly qualify you for d1ck. I have advanced degrees, but only an intellectual lightweight would rely on a degree- even from MIT- to defend an argument. Someone intelligent would actually try to have a discourse on the subject at hand. Ever met e dumb PhD? Ever met a smart HS graduate?
Once again, your reliance on Jay's credentials adds nothing to yours or his credibility. I feel like I'm tortoring a captured squirrel talking to you. And yet I keep doing it.
If you're going to call him a joke, at least get his name right. It's Gerald Schroeder, not Jay. In answer to your question, I've never met a dumb MIT physics PhD. Have you?
As far as discussing the subject at hand, I've been doing exactly that. Others on this thread--including yourself--have been relying on statements like "you're out of your league," "your arguments are stupid," "you are stupid," and the like.
-
-
You are either forgetful or intellectually dishonest. I've never written that Kurt Warner was the greatest QB in the league right now, just that he might well be a better option than Bledsoe or Losman. I've never called Stalin a stooge of FDR, but I have pointed out that FDR's pro-Soviet foreign policy led to a weakened American position in the postwar period, as well as the mass murder of millions of Germans by the Soviet government. I've never called Schroeder the premire (sic) physicist of our era; I've merely stated that he's done some calculations about red shift, the relativistic effect caused by the universe's expansion, etc., that are well within the grasp of any qualified physicist.
-
And my point - which you obviously didn't understand - is that Schroeder's theory is necessarily incomplete and hence wrong for NOT accounting for that period. Not only that, but it is VERY likely that time worked differently in that very early phase of the universe. Frankly, to say otherwise demonstrates clearly your complete ignorance on the subject (like I said: come talk to me when you renormalize a non-Abelian gauge field. Hell, come talk to me when you renormalize an Abelian gauge field...maybe then you'll be able to discuss it.)
Schroeder's ideas are false on their face simply because they're based on theories that have very serious problems: relativity (isn't quantized, hence can't explain the early universe), the Big Bang theory (in which enough holes have been found the past ten years for it to essentially be a bad theory), and Genesis (which isn't even a theory, but an allegorical catchall "God did it" statement that explains nothing). And that's not even to mention that accepted "age" of the universe nowadays is 12 billion years - even though there's objects observed that are 15 billion years old. So Schroeder basically claimes to have solved the problem of: quantizing gravity, estimating the correct mass of the universe, estimating the correct age of the universe including solving all the paradoxes discovered in the past ten years, and "proven" Genesis. That's basically what you're telling me...and yet, the guy hasn't been to Sweden.
I don't need to read the book to know he's a fraud, I just need to read his published professional research. Which I did. This morning. It took me precisely zero seconds, because he has precisely no published professional research. Ergo, he's not a professional physicist or astronomer or cosmologist...and a friggin' fraud with no credentials in the field whatsoever.
And his website says nothing about being an MIT professor, it says he was MIT trained. Neither one's authoritative, though...the real authority would be MIT. Oddly, they only list him as a trustee of MIT's drama department some years back.
Now please...explain to me again precisely how you know what the !@#$ you're talking about.
You've managed to write quite a long post without actually calling me or my ideas stupid. I'm sure that took unwonted self-control on your part. Well, you did break down a little in the last sentence, but I guess nobody's perfect.
As usual, your arguments are based on a misinterpretation of what I've written. I never said that Shroeder has proven with absolute certainty that there can be only one possible interpretation of Big Bang theory and of the relativistic effects of the universe's expansion. He himself didn't claim this. Instead, he wrote that there was a mainstream interpretation of Big Bang theory, etc., which dovetailed quite nicely with what the Book of Genesis said about the subject. If science is unable to explain everything about the universe's creation, you can hardly blame Genesis for the fact!
Now, you seem to be saying that time may have been so different during the quantum phase of the universe that days, months, years, or even millenia might have been added to the universe's apparent age from the point of view of an observer. Such a view cannot be either proven or disproven by mainstream science, because as you point out, mainstream science is simply unable to explain how time worked when the universe was in its quantum phase.
-
Kurt: you're clearly way out of your league, and want to believe Jay Schroeder's theories (I always wondered where he went) about the universe for some reason. Let me ask you: do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? Is that why you believe Mr. Schroeder? Because it's pretty clear he doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on.
It's Dr. Schroeder: he got his PhD in physics from MIT. Before you tell him that he's out of his league, please let us know which university you got your PhD in physic from. Oh, you mean to tell us that you don't have a PhD in physics? Too bad.
-
Respectfully , there is no way they were even close to equally responsible. The sack/fumble resulted in a direct 7 points and the INT right into the hands of the MLB led to 3 (and only 3 because of the strong defense), and the fumbled punt return led to more points. Were talking about three starts inside the 25 for Pitt here. And this somehow stacks up against one poor drive given up later in the game with one busted play? Realistically this is not an evenly weighted comparison.
Despite our disagreeance here DM, I love your posts
The Steelers weren't just trying to maximize the number of points they scored. Given the fact they'd taken the lead, they were trying to kill the clock. A nine minute drive is pretty effective at doing that, don't you think? That drive would have been ten or eleven minutes had Buffalo not burned some of its timeouts. Before the drive began, there was still plenty of hope for the Bills to win. Because the Steelers burned 15% of the entire game clock on that one drive alone, they put the Bills in a position where, to win, the Bills had to score a TD, recover an onside kick, and then score again. It wasn't as hopeless as the situation the D put the Bills in at the end of the Jacksonville game, but it was close.
-
My preference would be to use our 2nd round pick on an offensive lineman. We need more holes for McGahee to run through if we want to be a running team.
-
Virginians better keep their pants up
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Judging from Stevestojan's post, he learned enough not to react hysterically every time a fat plumber loses the "right' to show the world his ugly behind.