Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

They are reading it, but it's taking a lot of dictionary time!



Seriously, NB does appear to have thrown in the towel and all we're seeing is some token whining in order that he can deny he ran away.
 
Architect said:
Seriously, NB does appear to have thrown in the towel and all we're seeing is some token whining in order that he can deny he ran away.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right. Too bad, really. I was so looking forward to reading his take on legal principles. :D
 
I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
 
Non Believer said:
I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Click to expand...
Oh, thank you for coming down to my level. It is such an honor to have someone of such high position stoop to my lowly station! Please, what other wisdom can you bestow upon us, O Exalted One? I will strain my brain to avoid our blockheadedness, and be worthy of such as you!

Or not.
 
Non Believer said:
<snip>How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Click to expand...

NB: What, praytell, is the source of your apparent belief that you have knowledge about the presentation of expert witness testimony in the legal system that others do not "grasp"?

Before you answer, I should tell you that there are some actual lawyers here, myself included, and that there are some here who have been qualified as experts in their fields for purposes of testifying in court, and that there are many here who not only "grasp" how it works but understand it fully, and that almost everyone else here (with the notable exception of a few woos, perhaps) is fully capable of "grasping" it once it has been explained to them.

So, again, please advise of the source of your alleged superior knowledge in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either.
Click to expand...

This sentence no verb. I'll just have to assume you meant "I am afraid you didn't receive from me the calculus thing either", since you ran away from explaining it in as much detail as Architect explained the building collapse.

You didn't think I'd forget, did you? More fool you. Now run along until you learn to play nice.

Non Believer said:
The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason.
Click to expand...

Oh, we don't deny that it's possible to explain things with more than one framework. We're just denying that it's possible for you to explain things with more than one framework. So far, evidence suggests we're right.

Do feel free to prove me wrong, of course. We'll be waiting. Any day now.....
 
Non Believer said:
I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Click to expand...
Ooo... Psychobabble. Pretty meaningless in the context you yourself set up with this thread, too.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Ooo... Psychobabble. Pretty meaningless in the context you yourself set up with this thread, too.
Click to expand...

Yes, he appears to be just another run of the mill twoofer with absolutely nothing to back up his ludicrous assertions, who runs around posting tripe while pretending to have knowledge and expertise that he doesn't have, and then runs away when challenged by reality, facts, evidence, knowledge, and expertise.

No surprise.
 
Non Believer said:
Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
Click to expand...

Non Believer said:
I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Backing off already? Whoops, maybe you should have checked to see if there were any lawyers on this forum before you tried to intimidate with your "knowledge" of the law.

Non Believer said:
I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers. If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Click to expand...

Yep, and now on to the next subject you don't really know anything about in a vain attempt to one-up ... well, ANYONE on this forum at some point so your wounded sense of misplaced pride can claim at least some sort of moral victory.

It's been a good fifteen years, but heck, I did come within three credits of a psychology minor. ;) So how about looking in the mirror, NB and explain how our Occam's razor search for the simplest answer THAT LOGICALLY FITS compares to your circular, self-contradictory, amateur hour pseudophilopsychobabble, dodge-the-question, non-search for no answers.

Non Believer said:
I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you could deign to wallow down at our level just long enough to describe a framework in which a simple closed form integral of a continuous, well defined, bound function yields a diffferent result from "our" framework.

Non Believer said:
Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
Click to expand...

Heck, I'd be satisfied with an explaination of how "nuance" changes inertia, gravity, kinematics, materials properties, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, the standard model of quantum mechanics, aerodynamics, finite element analysis, computer/information theory, nonlinear dynamics, or mathematics.

(Or you can go ahead claim you don't have the time for it while you go and google some more cognointellectual sounding words to string together)
 
Last edited:
This is what I love about JREF. A troofer comes in spouting garbage in a particular field while lording it over those less aware of that particular field, and then a REAL expert in that actual field pops up and bitch slaps them. It's like "Punked" for experts.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
This is what I love about JREF. A troofer comes in spouting garbage in a particular field while lording it over those less aware of that particular field, and then a REAL expert in that actual field pops up and bitch slaps them. It's like "Punked" for experts.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

That´s true but on the other hand, and this is what
i don´t like on both sides of the discussion, if some-
one new with a different opinion comes here, he gets
bombed with questions/attacks from all sides.
 
Non Believer said:
I have to bring myself down to the level of those who cannot even comprehend abstraction apparently. My case is not for a literal case to occur. It is to serve as an illustration, so that perhaps you can understand how your claims of expertise do not occur in your own personal vacuum. How expert opinion is incorporated within our legal systems, and in the public arena in general, has a long history. The fact that you do not seem to grasp this is not my problem.
Think of it like your brick on the head example. I was trying to give you an analogy so that you might begin to grasp some of the deeper issues involved. Your version is that you get on the stand and two attorneys get turns to ask questions. Pretty in depth. Nuance, is a word you should consider adding to your repertoire of blockhead analysis techniques.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't understand that this nonsense doesn't impress or indimidate us. Actually, it makes me, for one, seriously doubt that you have even graduated from college, let alone received a post-graduate degree. Did you get your degree from Patriot U or something?

Or perhaps you've simply forgotten how to write coherently in the intervening years.

I am afraid you didn't the calculus thing either. The idea that there may be more than one framework in which an issue or science may be discussed is not exactly groundbreaking. Yet you seemed bound to deny this for some odd reason. I figure it must be that solid state Newtonian thing, where the insecurities of Freudian neurosis cause a need for simple answers.
If you have some other type of explanation, please let me know. Otherwise we will just assume that you can't understand that this is bigger than yourself
Click to expand...

You need to shut up about frameworks and post some kind of real evidence. You've consistently failed to do that since this thread started, but you've managed to provide us with plenty of mindless psycho-babble.

I hope that you don't believe that you are convincing anyone here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom