FailAlso: Honest disagreement doesn't = disparagement. One should be able to factually refute a point without being accused of "attacking"
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) July 20, 2013
Similarly, people w/similar principles should be able to disagree without assuming pure evilness or resorting to ugly ad hominem.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) July 20, 2013
I confess that if heard zombie "Colonel" Harland Sanders had leaped from the grave, taken over the "Meet the Press" studio at gunpoint and demanded that his "Chicken is Murder" manifesto be read on the air I would find that series on incidents more surreal than these tweets by Mr. Sirota.
Barely.
38 comments:
Mr. Sirota:
What is that psychological term for people who constantly portray others as having a disorder they themselves are afflicted with?
Speak up I can't hear you!..You need to...
Anyway, seems like there is a lot of that "disorder" going around these days...
Sirota's tweet cumbaya appears a day after this comes up on Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/salons-shocking-compariso_b_3625223.html
..several days after its original posting elsewhere.
Can't we all just get along? No Dave, not anymore...
Hey look:
Salon is inventing the tag team clusterfuck!
http://bobcesca.thedailybanter.com/blog-archives/2013/07/wtf-is-this.html
Is this what they call an "implosion"?
I went on a twitter rant about this the other day. It's one thing to voice disagreement with political allies. It's another thing entirely to denigrate another for not being "pure". When you're pulling in the same direction as another don't piss on them because they don't stroke your pet issue just right. (The "you" is editorial)
Right now the Republican Party is on the verge of collapsing in on itself over ideological differences. There is a golden opportunity for the left to cement progressive control of government for a generation as long as we can put aside our differences and keep pulling in the same direction.
Purity Is The Enemy Of Progress
My new motto
Uncivil blogger complains about uncivil bloggers again, points out hypocrisy of other uncivil blogger complaining about uncivil bloggers.
This uncivil blogger has been a lot more civil to you on this blog than I would kal-el.
I would have my inbox set to automatically rout you to the trash can.
In fact, I don't remember him even responding to one of your stupid insulting rants....
Whats the matter...no attention at home?
STFU mahakal. Oh, I'm sorry! Was that uncivil?
Perfectly. I personally don't give a fuck if bloggers are uncivil. Your argument needs work, though.
"Uncivil blogger complains about uncivil bloggers"
Oh goody, another symmetry-breaking exercise. These are always easy.
One blogger says "the people disagreeing with me are dishonest shills for the administration." One blogger says "the people calling their opponents dishonest shills for the administration are ruining things."
Can you see the lack of symmetry?
Civility and incivility composed no part of Driftglass's original post.
Where is the hypocrisy in highlighting a classic case of projection?
Jeez, mahakal, if you don't give a fuck if bloggers are civil or not, why was that the theme of your post?
Jeez, mahakal, if you don't give a fuck if bloggers are civil or not, why was that the theme of your post?
it was an attempt to generate free energy through a perpetual motion Rube Goldberg comment.
Sirota and his wife live in the same school board district in Denver that I do. A few years back his wife ran for school board against a woman who had been a dedicated volunteer and advocate for Denver Public Schools for about 20 years and was well liked. Mrs. Sirota's credentials were significantly less than that. So they decided their ideal campaign strategy was to smear the opponent with as many lies and garbage as they could in addition to misstating her positions and motivations for running.
The morning after the election, which Mrs. Sirota lost by double digits, David Sirota got on the Twitters and continued to fling poo at the opponent and the system. After getting a few "hey nows" from local media he proceeded to go after all of them, effectively burning every media bridge he had in the area. Finally at the end of the day he tweeted to the effect of "thanks everybody for making me feel bad. Today is my birthday."
What a tool that guy is.
Sirota, surrealism...let's call the whole thing off.
Obama's a good president. That's good. We leftists need to stick together. That will keep things good.
ZRM still maintaining the perpetual denial motor. Now there's an endless energy sink. :)
Water Engine.
Water is a dipole, no matter how much you mock and behave as a fool. Educate yourself, idjit.
Nobody's arguing that water isn't a dipole. It's your farcical idea that that somehow allows it to act as an energy source.
Did YOU even watch the lecture? (thanks for that, by the way. Contrary to your mewling, i do enjoy learning things) Because the primary role water plays in his talk is to STORE energy, not generate it. Yes, photosynthesis creates energy by splitting a water molecule. But that's not what you've been asserting; and it certainly isn't some magical new discovery.
You have a remarkable ability to glean pretty much the exact wrong lessons from the sources you post.
Interestingly, though, the energy source he is describing is a modified solar panel, based on a silicon-cobalt molecule.
Actually you did argue that water wasn't a dipole until I educated you, now you want to say that it isn't an engine, because the energy that it releases comes from the sun and ambient energy, which is what I've said all along. I'm not going to waste more time on this thread with your idiocy and denial. Keep being stupid.
Actually you did argue that water wasn't a dipole until I educated you, now you want to say that it isn't an engine, because the energy that it releases comes from the sun and ambient energy, which is what I've said all along.
No, I argued that water being a dipole didn't mean what you thought it meant.
Water still isn't an engine.
You can stop arguing about it anytime you want. But you're so easy.
Okay, fuckwit, just one moment:
ZRM: "water dipole separation
Does it shock anyone that Googling this term turns up exactly no results that match it?"
Have a good day, sir.
Technically correct: water is a fuel which can power an engine, not an engine itself, but that's obvious.
water is a fuel which can power an engine
Oh my, you keep it up.
ZRM: "water dipole separation
Does it shock anyone that Googling this term turns up exactly no results that match it?"
You loon, that doesn't dispute the dipole nature of water at all, it's the idea that there is power to be derived from separating it....some magical way.
There still aren't any Google results for that.
Like I said, there seems to be nothing you read that you can't completely misunderstand.
You can stop digging anytime.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. :)
For any non-morons here, here is one way to build a water fuel converter.
For any non-morons here, here is one way to build a water fuel converter.
That just shows hydrogen extraction from water using electrolysis. That's something everybody has known about for a really, really, long time.
The problem with using electrolysis for hydrogen generation is that it takes more energy input than the hydrogen output can generate. That's why we just use the electricity directly instead.
But if you weren't a crazy woo-head free energy cultist, you'd already understand that.
OBS that's the importance of what Daniel Nocera has demonstrated.
He's got LOTS of shovels, OBS, and just keeps digging.
And he's REALLY easy.
{and not that you probably couldn't figure this, but Nocera demonstrated no such thing. Watch the link; what our woo-friend here is talking about is a side effect of the actual experiments he was doing, and to get any significant energy output, he had to pour more energy into the system, as you pointed out].
ZRM is a disinfo expert. Nocera demonstrated a postage stamp sized solar powered integrated electrolysis unit. Watch the video for yourself. Anything ZRM says should be treated as untruth.
Actually, I owe mahakal a small apology. The Nocera video was about some experimental refinements of solar cells. I was thinking of the first video that mahakal posted, which he claimed was evidence that water could be exploited as some kind of magic battery to generate power, although the video didn't show anything of the sort.
But man, isn't he thin-skinned? If anyone is spreading disinfo around here, it's the guy who claims there's magic water energy, and when called on that claim, suddenly changes to ambient energy and solar cells.
Calling me a liar is just funny.
ZRM is the only person talking about magic. He distorts and makes light of everything. Obviously none of this should be taken as a big deal by anyone, he would maintain. Although, certainly Harvard University thinks it is.
The videos I presented in the past were for another technology that allows electricity to be drawn directly from the water dipole separation without electrolysis. This is also a real thing, well academically supported, and not magic.
There are other technologies as well that I haven't presented here at all regarding water splitting and water energy extraction and transduction of currents to and from radiant pulses, not to mention the implosive capacity of cavitated water gas to produce incredible heat and even transmutation of elements. And that's just dealing with water, not to mention air potentials and earth currents. None of this is magic at all, though as Arthur C. Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology may appear so to the less enlightened mind.
I really have nothing further to say to ZRM, but I accept his apology for not watching the video that I posted in this thread before commenting upon it.
I really have nothing further to say to ZRM, but I accept his apology for not watching the video that I posted in this thread before commenting upon it.
Read what I said. I did watch the video, and wasn't apologizing for that. I was apologizing for getting the two mixed up in my response.
I don't make light of everything, just of the woo that you refer to.
Sheesh. Like I said, you have a remarkable ability to take the exact wrong lesson away from things you read or hear.
were for another technology that allows electricity to be drawn directly from the water dipole separation without electrolysis. This is also a real thing, well academically supported, and not magic.
Which you also magically managed to avoid linking to. I know it escaped you, but this dipole separation thing is not what Nocera is working on. The water in his system STORES energy, doesn't create it. I recognize that you may not recognize the difference.
None of this is magic at all, though as Arthur C. Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology may appear so to the less enlightened mind.
and the carnival barker may be reduced to calling people who are skeptical of his claims stupid.
You have made claims that are nearly unsupported by the links you post, and when challenged, call people stupid, unenlightened, and unwilling to watch the videos. Then you shift the goalposts to a different energy topic. Then, you claim I apologized for something I didn't and proclaim victory.
I am waiting for the link to anti-vax sites, don't hold back. Perhaps some 9/11 Trutherism is next?
But you can stop responding to me at any time. You keep saying it, but you're too easy.
I am waiting for the link to anti-vax sites, don't hold back. Perhaps some 9/11 Trutherism is next?
Oooh ZRM, I think you may be on to something: mahakal is really Jenny McCarthy! It explains so much.
For the benefit of others, again, the water dipole separation method of electrical extraction is what Gerald Pollack proved and demonstrated. Daniel Nocera demonstrated integrated solar water splitting. Two separate technologies. Have fun with remaining ignorant, OBS.
Have fun with remaining ignorant, OBS.
[Snrk]
Being called "ignorant" by you is not the insult you think it is.
But yes, please continue to "educate" me, Jenny.
Or, as the evil Kenyan usurper put it "Please proceed, Governor."
I did this once before.
Note that using the EXACT PHRASE our friend puts in his comments, there are exactly NO Google results that talk about generating electricity in any way. Many many definitions of dipole. A convertor for calculating the dipole moment. Different kinds of dipoles (because water is hardly unique in that characteristic).
I guess you will just have to come to terms with being ignorant of something that doesn't exist, OBS.
This doesn't exist, apparently. ;)
Post a Comment