• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mark Embarrasses Kevin Ryan

LashL said:
It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:



In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.
Click to expand...

WOW!
Amazing!
 
LashL said:
It appears as though that might be the case from some of the comments I've read there, but I do not know. They are troofers, so they might also have some kind of sooper sekrit voting system about banning people after they reach X number of negative points, for all I know. I have never cared enough about that blog to look into its inner workings.

ETA: Apparently, yes, the negative votes does have to do with being banned there:



In other words, rather than have legitimate moderation, they allow the lunatics to run the asylum.
Click to expand...

[sarcasm]I've always thought that true scientific debate of such paramount importance should be more like the TV show Survivor...[sarcasm]
 
Kevin Ryan is, apparently, an idiot.

UL doesn't certify steel members. It certifies fireproofing systems for steel members and assemblies. I have a 4,000 page UL Fire Resistance Directory sitting in my office right now, and in no place in that directory am I able to look up what the innate fire resistance is of a W14x48 steel beam, or a 7K20 steel bar joist, or any other piece of structure. What I can find out is how those members will perform once certain types of fire resisting material is applied to them under a certain specification.

The UL doesn't test steel that is used in construction. How could they? The very nature of the tests are destructive - you're trying to determine at what point the steel fails - and afterwards the pieces are unusable. At the very most, they could take samples of steel members from every building project ever and perform tests on them to cover the whole group, but this would be highly uneconomical, and frankly, stupid. We already know how raw steel will act in a fire condition.

The system they actually use - wherein they do much fewer tests and then publish the resuslts for everyone - is better by far. It allows me to specifically tell a contractor that the fireproofing needs to meet UL Certification #XYZ - which he can look up easily - and everyone knows what to expect. I don't have to draw a detail or perform expensive tests, and he doesn't have to waste a bunch of time and money trying to figure out exactly what I want and order custom parts.

I find it difficult to imagine that in his own experience at the UL, Mr. Ryan didn't experience a similar process to this. As far as I've been able to tell, the scientists and engineers who work there are pretty intelligent people. Was Water-Boy testing the water specifically to test the water? Was he monitoring the potable water supply to greater Chicago or something? Or, was he testing water to determine the effectiveness of various filtration systems designed to purify water under various conditions, so they could make a similar directory to the one that I use, which would tell people what to expect for individual filter assemblies?

If it's the latter, which I find much more plausible despite my lack of knowledge of UL's water-testing division, I can't help but consider that he's either being deliberately ignorant, obtuse, or outright lying.
 
To be honest, I considered it both ways, and I decided to leave it in, because I can't state without equivocation that he is an idiot, and not merely ignorant or deceitful. He does, after all, have an advanced degree in a valid scientific field. Since I can't do that, it's merely my opinion, and I wanted to make certain that I noted it as such so as to not take anything away from the fact-ful-ness of the rest of my post (minus the obivious speculation on my part at the end).
 
Minadin said:
To be honest, I considered it both ways, and I decided to leave it in, because I can't state without equivocation that he is an idiot, and not merely ignorant or deceitful. He does, after all, have an advanced degree in a valid scientific field. Since I can't do that, it's merely my opinion, and I wanted to make certain that I noted it as such so as to not take anything away from the fact-ful-ness of the rest of my post (minus the obivious speculation on my part at the end).
Click to expand...

He does not have an advanced degree, he just has a BS in chemistry, from some university which he never mentions.
 
9/11 Blogger said:
Users should use the vote up/down widget to vote down comments which go against the basic guidelines listed above.
Click to expand...

Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:
  • Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
  • Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
  • Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed
I broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)
 
Last edited:
ref said:
Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:
  • Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
  • Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
  • Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed
I broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)
Click to expand...

The voting thing on 911 blogger is pretty silly. You can post a news article, entirely without comment, that happens to contradict one of their theories and the next thing you know you will have a -8 vote.
 
ref said:
Which is funny, because the rules clearly state:
  • Do not post entries that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material, or resort to attacking other users
  • Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
  • Try to respect others who may have differing opinions, posts which are purely abusive will be removed
I broke no rules, as far as I know. Instead, all those above mentioned rules were constantly broken when I was attacked and voted into minus depths. Especially that last rule amuses me. What a load of total BS. That rule does not apply at all.

ETA: And Mark did a great job there, as I have mentioned before :)
Click to expand...
You did break #2. The information you posted wasn't useful because it proves their side wrong :)
 
JamesB said:
The voting thing on 911 blogger is pretty silly. You can post a news article, entirely without comment, that happens to contradict one of their theories and the next thing you know you will have a -8 vote.
Click to expand...

It's silly by all means. Imagine a group of "official theory" supporters flooding that site. In no time all the truthers would be banned by them. Then it would be an official story supporting site. Have they ever considered that?
 
Tsk tsk, you guys totally missed the smackdown that was given by Col. Jenny Sparks:

"What the hell time is it where you're at? And you're tag teaming Kevin not only in the middle of the bloody night, but HOURS after his posts? Possibly to avoid a REAL arguments?"

Sheesh, I was a fan of Gravy, but if he's not going to make his posts during normal business hours.....
 
Aggs said:
Tsk tsk, you guys totally missed the smackdown that was given by Col. Jenny Sparks:

"What the hell time is it where you're at? And you're tag teaming Kevin not only in the middle of the bloody night, but HOURS after his posts? Possibly to avoid a REAL arguments?"

Sheesh, I was a fan of Gravy, but if he's not going to make his posts during normal business hours.....
Click to expand...

Yes, you can forget all the debunking by Gravy, because he posts in late/early hours of the day :rolleyes:

Jenny has difficulty understanding that where I live, time is 7 hours ahead of US eastern time and 10 hours ahead of west coast.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Where is the smackdown? Did they debate?
Click to expand...

SCG - do you have a mouse on your computer, or are you still using that old Coleco Speak-N-Spell?

This is the second thread I've looked at in five minutes where you don't seem to be able to click on a link in an earlier post to see some information. Or are you one of those, "I don't have time to click my mouse, I'm too busy finding the truth" guys?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom