Jump to content
The Corroboree

CβL

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,772

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by CβL

  1. Posted

    Today, was another bastard of a hot day. There was 6mm of rain this month - and already 'round here almost all of the grass (some people living in valleys have green grass, and the back of our property is shaded and the grass is green there too) has stopped growing, turned brown, and probably died. I just want it to rain again so the plants can grow. Those people who want blazing hot days when it suits them and green plants, will hopefully realize what a blessing the rain and clouds in general are - I get so sick of people whining about clouds. "waaahhhh, there's some clouds in the sky, WAHHHHH it's raining!!1 I'm a little baby who doesn't like rain!!! wahhhhhh" - I hope they get mega sunburned and learn their lesson :devil: .


    Anyway, today I did the rounds, and found my first case of actual rot. Somehow, despite this weather being so hot, a plant that I took a cutting from, and sulfured, had begun to rot through the flesh, in a line next to the vascular bundle. I chopped sections off until I met clean flesh, and sulfured again. This is the only plant that has basically sand for soil - so I'm pegging that it was just weak from its soil being crap.
    Gonna water them this evening, and hopefully they can grow a bit. Also dug more of tree-stump #2 - it's almost out.

    @Getafix: Your plants look awesome, and I must say that the Terscheckii x Psycho0 has me amazed. I can't wait to see it get huge. :D

    • Like 3

  3. Posted · Edited by CβL

    I better add another nail on the caffeine addiction coffin. Caffeine basically, it's a vasoconstrictor (blood vessel tightener). So in your eyes, in your ears, in your brain - there are these fine capillaries, very fine. What you're instructing them to do with caffeine, is to tighten. I wondered if caffeine tolerance would reduce this effect. Here's what I found with a crafty google search:

    The Effect of Daily Caffeine Use on Cerebral Blood Flow: How Much Caffeine Can We Tolerate? Abstract

    Caffeine is a commonly used neurostimulant that also produces cerebral vasoconstriction by antagonizing adenosine receptors. Chronic caffeine use results in an adaptation of the vascular adenosine receptor system presumably to compensate for the vasoconstrictive effects of caffeine. We investigated the effects of caffeine on cerebral blood flow (CBF) in increasing levels of chronic caffeine use. Low (mean = 45 mg/day), moderate (mean = 405 mg/day), and high (mean = 950 mg/day) caffeine users underwent quantitative perfusion magnetic resonance imaging on four separate occasions: twice in a caffeine abstinent state (abstained state) and twice in a caffeinated state following their normal caffeine use (native state). In each state there were two drug conditions: participants received either caffeine (250 mg) or placebo. Gray matter CBF was tested with repeated-measures analysis of variance using caffeine use as a between-subjects factor, and correlational analyses were conducted between CBF and caffeine use. Caffeine reduced CBF by an average of 27% across both caffeine states [n. In the abstained placebo condition, moderate and high users had similarly greater CBF than low users; but in the native placebo condition [they had their fix in the morning], the high users had a trend towards less CBF than the low and moderate users. Our results suggest a limited ability of the cerebrovascular adenosine system to compensate for high amounts of daily caffeine use.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748160/



    Ironically, I've had too much caffeine today, and now I can't concentrate and can't (maybe it was after reading about CBF in the report - that I CBF) summarizing this report with certainty. But I believe it to be quite grim for our tiny little capillaries and the cells they feed (namely that they're being starved to death - aka we have excess cell death from caffeine).

  4. Posted · Edited by CβL

    I just want to say this - the term 'global warming' is a bit of a misnomer. All that's actually happening via the greenhouse effect, is that radiant energy (infrared) is being reflected back towards Earth. That's it.

    The effect is better described that there's increased energy in the system (the system is Earth plus the atmosphere), and that this energy must obviously manifest in some form. So your immediate predictions of the temperature rising (based on the greenhouse effect's description) are actually based on the assumption that there's constant heat everywhere on Earth (we'll get to why). This is obviously not true (polar ice-caps, the ocean absorbs more heat than a desert, etc) - a thing called a heat gradient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_gradient) exists between the hot and the cold areas. The greater the difference between the temperatures of the two areas of fluid (air is a fluid), the greater the movement of matter from the cold to the hot and movement of heat from the hot to the cold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection).

    Aka there's more wind, and more ocean currents. Not everywhere all at once. But between areas of difference. Some of these may cancel out - there might be two wind currents meeting, and previously one was stronger - now the other one gets a power-up, and they both cancel out (for example). Now lastly, the Earth's climate is a highly complex system, where the assumption that a small change here, will have a small change here cannot be made. Essentially, the butterfly effect (that a butterfly in Mexico, could create a tornado through a chain of events, that destroys all of Iowa [good riddance] ). Now this isn't some wacky idea - it's real (not the butterfly terrorist), but the idea that a tiny change, can have a huge difference, and more importantly - that we cannot predict /exactly/ what will happen in a chaotic system - any time into the future. But - we can predict properties of the system, such as average energy, or average flow rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system . That's why the weather prediction is often off (usually they get the weather right, but not the location - i.e. a big cyclone will usually dodge a country, rather than evaporate).
    Now basically, let's say the winds are moving faster, and cancelling each other out, and changing directions (easy to see why, based on the prior explanations), then when an arctic wind for example, is blowing faster, and is directed to somewhere with a lot of humidity (which was raised into the air by excess radiant energy), then there will be.... heavy frozen precipitation, more than usual (aka lots of snow).
    The mean temperature would only rise evenly everywhere, if the planet had no wind, and was homogenous (made out of the same stuff everywhere), and wasn't spinning (no coriolis force to make wind).

    So the roadmap for understanding this is:

    1) Understand that the greenhouse effect is the trapping of radiant energy (photons).

    2) Understand that the planet has areas of different absorption rates (black rock mesa [absorbs heat], middle of the ocean, shallow salt pan lake, snow [reflects heat]), and initial temperatures (polar ice caps, rocky mesas, middle of the ocean).

    3) Understand that convection occurs whenever there's a heat gradient
    4) Understand that the climate is a chaotic system, and thus you must treat it as such (re-read above, I've used colorful language, but it's pretty much to the T factual)

    5) Understand how some local climates can be hotter, some can be colder and windier, but the mean temperature of the globe is higher than ever before

    Thank you for understanding climate change.

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    The thing is that caffeine is wonderful when you first start... but once you're on it every day - it's worse than if you never started it at all. And don't get me started on how caffeine makes your vision blur.

    But yeah, coke is full of phosphoric acid (all soft drinks actually are), and they fully wreck your teeth. There was a "lady" (more like female blob) over here who had a savage coke and ciggies habit, and died at 30:

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/woman-s-daily-cola-habit-likely-led-to-death-docs-1.799039

    A 30-year-old New Zealand woman's habit of drinking several litres of Coca-Cola a day probably contributed to her death, doctors testifed at an inquest this week.

    Natasha Harris, a stay-at-home mother of eight from Invercargill, died of a heart attack in February, 2010.

    A pathologist, Dr. Dan Mornin, testified at the inquest Thursday that Harris' heart attack was caused by cardiac arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm), Fairfax Media reported.

    He added it was likely she was suffering from hypokalemia (low potassium) a condition that can lead to abnormal heart rhythms. He said be believed the condition was likely caused by her excessive consumption of cola and overall poor nutrition.

    Mornin said that Harris also had toxic levels of caffeine, a stimulant found in most colas, which also may have contributed to her death.

    Harris' partner, Chris Hodgkinson, testified that Harris regularly drank between 4.5 and 10 litres of Coke every day, averaging about seven litres a day.

    "The first thing she would do in the morning was to have a drink of Coke beside her bed and the last thing she would do at night was have a drink of Coke," Hodgkinson said in a deposition.

    "She was addicted to Coke," he said adding that if she didn't have her daily dose of Coke, she got moody, had headaches and was low in energy.

    He said he had known Harris since she was 16 and she had always drank Coke. But he said in the last seven or eight years of her life, she had increased her habit from a couple of 1.5-litre bottles a day up to five bottles a day.

    Hodgkinson said Harris ate little and smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day. Harris also had severe dental problems and all her teeth had been removed.

    In the months before her death, he said, Harris felt sick all the time, experienced blood pressure problems and lacked energy. She had pain in her stomach and complained her heart would "pump like mad," Hodgkinson said.

    He said he never suspected the Coke was making her ill.

    "I never thought about it. It's just a soft drink, just like drinking water. I didn't think a soft drink was going to kill her," he said.

    Another pathologist, Dr. Martin Sage, said in a deposition that "it is certainly well demonstrated that excessive long or short term cola ingestion can be dramatically symptomatic, and there are strong hypothetical grounds for this becoming fatal in individual cases."

    Hodgkinson said he thinks cola drinks should come with warning label, saying that might have reduced the amount Harris drank.

    "I know she wouldn't have wanted to die and leave her eight children with no mother," he said.

    Karen Thompson, a spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Oceania, said in a statement that its products are safe.

    "We concur with the information shared by the coroner's office that the grossly excessive ingestion of any food product, including water, over a short period of time with the inadequate consumption of essential nutrients, and the failure to seek appropriate medical intervention when needed, can be dramatically symptomatic."

    Drinking too much water in a short period can lead to a condition known as water intoxication. The condition can cause hyponatremia, which is the dilution of sodium and other electrolytes needed to maintain basic heart and brain functions.

    The coroner's office is expected to issue a final report on the death soon.

  7. Posted

    Liquorice tea is sweet, and bitter. First the bitterness washes over your tongue, and then a beautiful sweetness which lasts much longer takes its place. I really enjoy it, but not every night, as the bitterness is slightly more so than black tea.

    But you totally get used to black tea. I could drink litres of the stuff.

    Lastly there's redbush tea (Rooibos), which is extremely tasty, and probably among the best antioxidant teas out there.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    I can't believe this... but nobody has said to drink tea? Tea is the fkn best - don't drink it straight out of the kettle (it's a bit hot, you see), but let it cool down first. Tea is quite a lot better than coffee, because it releases the caffeine half as fast, and it's just really low caffeine too. It also contains theanine - which is quite good for you - and will chill you out a bit. Tea is also exactly at the level where you can quit it without even trying. I prefer to have a bit of milk in mine, because then I can start to drink it ASAP, but at my flat I didn't buy milk, so just had it black.

    I was also addicted to those energy drinks, and I must say - they're nasty and hard to quit a habit of.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    I'd say this one is particularly old - the spines are close together, suggesting it hasn't been pumped. I'd estimate it's 50+ at least, and possibly closer to 80. I've seen ancient plants half the size that were estimated at 40-60 years old, but considering that Astros probably prefer your climate over there.

    • Like 2

  14. Posted · Edited by CβL

    I think it's less of a suggestion that we take money from the rich and give to the poor, and more that we simply have the resources in the world to fix all the major problems - if we all communicated effectively, shared common goals, thought critically, etc. The idea of an 'economic health' - dictating that half of the world's people should live in squalor, drink fetid water and eat next to nothing - is utterly absurd to me. Never mind the animal and plant species that suffer under our reign.

    The prisoner's dilemma, refers to much more than the dilemma of two prisoners being bribed to rat each other out. It also refers to two or more parties, faced with a decision where they can be honest or deceitful, and the pay-offs are structured a certain way, so that if everyone plays fairly, then it's the best overall scenario, but if they cheat and you play fairly - they get a huge advantage (and vice versa), and this - coupled with mutual distrust - means that both sides end up cheating, and they both get the worst outcome of all. Here's kind of another way of explaining the same situation:

    Two people meet and exchange closed bags, with the understanding that one of them contains money, and the other contains a purchase. Either player can choose to honor the deal by putting into his or her bag what he or she agreed, or he or she can defect by handing over an empty bag.


    Now imagine every country is a player - they all distrust eachother, so no country will cut back on burning petroleum or coal, because then the other countries industries will march ahead.

    Some countries have countered this by realizing that it's simply a matter of time before the other countries all lose, so by switching early, they are delaying their advantage until a later date, in exchange for momentary inconvenience.

    Another approach to remedy this problem, is the way that an ant colony works. That an ant knows when to sacrifice himself for the good of the colony. If the world worked this way, that people knew when they should self-sacrifice, or countries knew when they should give out more resources than they received.- Not just people, but when people realized their life was less meaningful than a small woodland, or a little stretch of river, or a grove of mangroves - that their individual pain was much less than the gain of everyone else, and that that makes it worth it (this is the antithesis of the modern fanaticism of individuality - that you're a special magical individual, and that your life is the most important thing) - that somehow, despite your individual life ending - life itself (which is still you, as you are life) continuing meant that you didn't really die after all

    The prisoner's dilemma comes into it again, because many people would consider sacrificing themselves - but they distrust each other, they don't believe they would receive the same sacrifice from the other parties if the situation was reversed - so they "cheat", and favour themselves at the loss of the whole every time. This type of decision made repeatedly, is obviously far worse for the welfare of lifekind as a whole.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Real-life_examples

    Real-life examples

    These particular examples, involving prisoners and bag switching and so forth, may seem contrived, but there are in fact many examples in human interaction as well as interactions in nature that have the same payoff matrix. The prisoner's dilemma is therefore of interest to the social sciences such as economics, politics and sociology, as well as to the biological sciences such as ethology and evolutionary biology. Many natural processes have been abstracted into models in which living beings are engaged in endless games of prisoner's dilemma. This wide applicability of the PD gives the game its substantial importance.

    In environmental studies

    In environmental studies, the PD is evident in crises such as global climate change. It is argued all countries will benefit from a stable climate, but any single country is often hesitant to curb CO2 emissions. The immediate benefit to an individual country to maintain current behavior is perceived to be greater than the purported eventual benefit to all countries if behavior was changed, therefore explaining the current impasse concerning climate change.[citation needed][12]

    An important difference between climate change politics and the prisoner's dilemma is uncertainty. The pace at which pollution will change climate is not known precisely. The dilemma faced by government is therefore different from the prisoner's dilemma in that the payoffs of cooperation are largely unknown. This difference suggests states will cooperate much less than in a real iterated prisoner's dilemma, so that the probability of avoiding a climate catastrophe is much smaller than that suggested by a game-theoretical analysis of the situation using a real iterated prisoner's dilemma.[13]

    In psychology

    In addiction research/behavioral economics, George Ainslie points out[14] that addiction can be cast as an intertemporal PD problem between the present and future selves of the addict. In this case, defecting means relapsing, and it is easy to see that not defecting both today and in the future is by far the best outcome, and that defecting both today and in the future is the worst outcome. The case where one abstains today but relapses in the future is clearly a bad outcome—in some sense the discipline and self-sacrifice involved in abstaining today have been "wasted" because the future relapse means that the addict is right back where he started and will have to start over (which is quite demoralizing, and makes starting over more difficult). The final case, where one engages in the addictive behavior today while abstaining "tomorrow" will be familiar to anyone who has struggled with an addiction. The problem here is that (as in other PDs) there is an obvious benefit to defecting "today", but tomorrow one will face the same PD, and the same obvious benefit will be present then, ultimately leading to an endless string of defections.

    John Gottman in his research described in "the science of trust" defines good relationships as those where partners know not to enter the (D,D) cell or at least not to get dynamically stuck there in a loop.

    In economics

    Advertising is sometimes cited as a real life example of the prisoner’s dilemma. When cigarette advertising was legal in the United States, competing cigarette manufacturers had to decide how much money to spend on advertising. The effectiveness of Firm A’s advertising was partially determined by the advertising conducted by Firm B. Likewise, the profit derived from advertising for Firm B is affected by the advertising conducted by Firm A. If both Firm A and Firm B chose to advertise during a given period the advertising cancels out, receipts remain constant, and expenses increase due to the cost of advertising. Both firms would benefit from a reduction in advertising. However, should Firm B choose not to advertise, Firm A could benefit greatly by advertising. Nevertheless, the optimal amount of advertising by one firm depends on how much advertising the other undertakes. As the best strategy is dependent on what the other firm chooses there is no dominant strategy, which makes it slightly different than a prisoner's dilemma. The outcome is similar, though, in that both firms would be better off were they to advertise less than in the equilibrium. Sometimes cooperative behaviors do emerge in business situations. For instance, cigarette manufacturers endorsed the creation of laws banning cigarette advertising, understanding that this would reduce costs and increase profits across the industry.[15] This analysis is likely to be pertinent in many other business situations involving advertising.[citation needed]

    Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma.[16] 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members. Anti-trust authorities want potential cartel members to mutually defect, ensuring the lowest possible prices for consumers.

    In sport

    Doping in sport has been cited as an example of a prisoner's dilemma.[17]

    If two competing athletes have the option to use an illegal and dangerous drug to boost their performance, then they must also consider the likely behaviour of their competitor. If neither athlete takes the drug, then neither gains an advantage. If only one does, then that athlete gains a significant advantage over their competitor (reduced only by the legal or medical dangers of having taken the drug). If both athletes take the drug, however, the benefits cancel out and only the drawbacks remain, putting them both in a worse position than if neither had used doping.[18]

    Multiplayer dilemmas

    Many real-life dilemmas involve multiple players. Although metaphorical, Hardin's tragedy of the commons may be viewed as an example of a multi-player generalization of the PD: Each villager makes a choice for personal gain or restraint. The collective reward for unanimous (or even frequent) defection is very low payoffs (representing the destruction of the "commons"). The commons are not always exploited: William Poundstone, in a book about the prisoner's dilemma (see References below), describes a situation in New Zealand where newspaper boxes are left unlocked. It is possible for people to take a paper without paying (defecting) but very few do, feeling that if they do not pay then neither will others, destroying the system. Subsequent research by Elinor Ostrom, winner of the 2009 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, hypothesized that the tragedy of the commons is oversimplified, with the negative outcome influenced by outside influences. Without complicating pressures, groups communicate and manage the commons among themselves for their mutual benefit, enforcing social norms to preserve the resource and achieve the maximum good for the group, an example of effecting the best case outcome for PD.[19]

    The Cold War

    The Cold War and similar arms races can be modelled as a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.[20] During the Cold War the opposing alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both had the choice to arm or disarm. From each side's point of view: Disarming whilst your opponent continues to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack each other, but at the high cost of maintaining and developing a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. If your opponent disarmed while you continue to arm, then you achieve superiority.

    Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm. This is indeed what happened, and both sides poured enormous resources in to military research and armament for the next thirty years until the dissolution of the Soviet Union broke the deadlock.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    Okay, update:

    Went today and dug some soil from the Acacias. I didn't really pay attention before, but it seems that all the trees on that part of the hillside are Acacia melanoxylons. I selected a few trees that looked healthy, and dug up some soil. There was that funny onion smell (the rhizobia?), and I saw some little nodules. I got half a bucket worth, and sifted it through a very coarse strainer to get the root chunks out. Then I stirred it a lot, and wet it to get the clay parts to dissolve. I made my soil mixtures more or less as I intended, but included some vermiculite too. I put the mixtures into their little pots. The seed-raising mixture that I included as part of some of the mixes apparently contained a fungicide - I didn't have anything else to substitute it with, so just put it in anyway. I'll just have to make some "soil tea" and innoculate at regular intervals at a later date in case this fungicide is strong enough to wreck the rhizobia.

    Then I got the seeds out, and labelled some glass containers with the names. I decided I wouldn't risk scarification, as I'd had only success in the past with hot-water, and I didn't want to try a new technique this time. I've since put the hot water onto the seeds, and am waiting overnight for any swelled seeds to get planted. I might nick the seedcoat of the swelled seeds if it seems easy to do so.

  22. Posted

    Koch-Funded Study Finds 2.5°F Warming Of Land Since 1750 Is Manmade, ‘Solar Forcing Does Not Appear To Contribute’

    By Joe Romm on Jan 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) has finally published its findings on the cause of recent global warming. This Koch-funded reanalysis of millions of temperature observations from around the world, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011,” concludes:

     

    …
    solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic [human-made] proxy
    .

     

    decadal-with-forcing-small.gif

     

    >
    The decadal land surface temperature from BEST average (black line), “compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions (responsible for the short dips) and the natural logarithm of CO2 (responsible for the gradual rise) shown in red.
    Inclusion of a proxy for solar activity did not significantly improve the fit
    . The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.”

     

    You may recall that back in July, Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, published a NY Times op-ed, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” which concluded

     

    Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further:
    Humans are almost entirely the cause.

     

    The finding itself is “dog bites man” (see It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was).

    What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!

    Muller further explained:

     

    Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover,
    it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases
    .

    These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

     

    In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!

    The Koch-finded study also finds, “the rate of warming we observe is broadly consistent with the IPCC estimates of 2-4.5°C warming (for land plus oceans) at doubled CO2.” A summary of BEST’s findings are on their website.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/20/1474571/koch-funded-study-finds-25f-warming-of-land-since-1750-is-manmade-solar-forcing-does-not-appear-to-contribute/?mobile=nc

  23. Posted · Edited by CβL

    Your ability to listen and comprehend has atrophied - you seem to think that when people disagree with you, it's an attack. As a result, you reply with plain attacks - this is why I've singled you out, not for any other reason. Sometimes lessons come in the form of slaps - might be something worth noting for the future.
    Secondly, you've assumed I'm supporting a 'team', which is an incorrect assumption. So your reply is actually tangent to where it should be - another result of atrophied listening skills. Listening means actually taking into account what the other party is saying, conjuring up the concepts and using your imagination to try and understand - rather than predicting what they're about to say and using the time to come up with a retort.

    Good luck in the future with your attitude - you'll need all the luck you can be wished.

    • Like 3

  24. Posted

    ROFLMAO....wow did I get the little kiddies hot and bothered yesterday. :wink: The last five responses from you guys are and obvious display of just how pissed off I got you. Mission accomplished...I had a great day, so thanks. And as a bonus I gave the boys over at climate change dispatch a good old chuckle at your arrogance and foolishness, particularly whiteboy. And whiteboy.Your finished with me so don't bother. I won't read your juvenile posts any more. Straight out of grade school stuff from you. You even write like a kid. I'll be a lot more active here from now on. There is just so much out there that debunks you lot but just not enough hours in the day. Bring the hand puppet guy back too. He’s good value even if he contributes nothing but shit and insults.

    Well well well, Dolos admits to trolling now. It's as if he thinks that saying "haha, I was trolling" makes his wilful ignorance (aka stupidity) go away.

    Please leave the thread, or better yet - spend a few thousand hours learning about science before coming back - because right now you're nothing but a nasty haemorrhoid on what was once a thread that served a purpose.

    Lastly - who, other than the playground bully from the first 2 years of primary school - tries to mock someone's name? Do you know how stupid and pointless that it - and how it reflects on your intellect more than anything else - namely that you have nothing better to say.

    • Like 1
×