Will Blog For Abuse
So I'm reading Stuart Taylor guest blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy and one commenter notes that a previous guest blogger only lasted for two posts.
No disrespect to her but maybe she was unfamiliar with the level of discourse on the blogging medium?Well yeah.
So my friend Eric at Classical Values makes a similar point today.
I'm convinced there has to be a blogging gene. I mean, who would do this voluntarily without pay, day in and day out? Think about it.And then a bit earlier I had a couple of real charmers show up at this post: Conspiracy Theories. My attitude? Some of us enjoy the abuse.
So my motto is "Will blog for abuse. At least it increases the traffic." I'm in this for the abuse. Pile on.
Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers
Posts
9 comments:
Feh!
You are not worrrrrthy of my abuse!
You wallow in logic, reason and reality. If you were worthy of the abuse that is heaped upon some, then soon you would believe yourself human after all.
Bah, unworthy cad! I take my leave, Sir!
(xy cul = xy genes? See You Later)
Lest anyone suspect me of being an M.Simon sycophant, I offer my special definition of "sadist": one who goes around being nice to masochists.
Simon stop drinking the Polywater!!
People blog because they have a need to be heard. My guess is that a self-professed "bad actor" like yourself (your own words right?)never received much of an audience. But then again, you always "came out smelling like roses, right?". What you really are is a massive blowhard.
Puff, puff, puff...
Chatteron,
Thanks for the click and the post.
It helps raise my Google score.
Come back again soon y'all heah.
No prob MSimon!
Someone's gotta help a Cretacious-period-washed-up-legend-in-his-own-mind-Forth-Lovin'aerospace-engineer earn a livin' in retirement!
p.s. Does the U of Chicago.
Teach their students.
To write everything.
In sentence fragments?
Chatteron,
I write as I please. Some like reading it some don't.
Glad to have you aboard.
Keep posting.
BTW I love design reviews. Care to review my fusion reactor design at IEC Fusion Technology? We can do it publicly and you can humiliate me for my technical incompetence.
I mean your being so critical and all you must be an expert. So you know, show us your mad skillz and bring it on.
GoogleCount++;
A design review for pathological fusion science???? Sounds like trying to convince a creationist that the earth is more than 6000 years old.
What part of Q << 0.0001 do you want to debate?
Before you get too entrenched in your design work and dreams of simulation by distributed computing, perhaps you should do a requirements validation first. That's systems engineering 101 - it prevents people from building expensive things based on incomplete requirements based soley on anecdotal "evidence". In other words, provide some objective evidence that IEC has any capability to provide breakeven power output. And please tell me that you've got more than Bussard's "Valencia" paper to prove it. The latter being the rambling, poorly written, unscientific paper submitted (in absentia, of course) to the International Astronautical Congress in 2006. Please tell me you have more than that to go on. I sure you will regale us with promising tales of POPS and recent MIT theses "proving" that the answer has been found right? Fine. Show us yer Mad Skillz!
You and your fellow Bussardian Believers routinely make reference to the work done by groups at Kyoto, UIUC, UW Madison, MIT, etc as validation that IEC is feasible for achieving Q>1. Unfortunately, none of those groups make any such promises. Instead, they have far more realistic expectations of IEC that include the development of compact neutron source applications for explosive detection and medical isotope generation. Miley, et al at UIUC has published extensively on this.
Furthermore, when asked about fusors for power generation, Goldston (PPPL director) noted that PPPL invested $20M as part of the Alternative Confinement Concepts program in the '90s and fusors simply weren't viable. Of course, according to Bussard, the only people who are capable to comment on IEC are fellow vacuum tube octogenarians and "a couple very bright 30 somethings".
Bussard, in his DOE-consiracy laced, $200M pitch to Google money bucket promised us a "120 page paper" detailing his 11 years of great science. That was last November -- where's the paper???
During a recently interview with NPR, renowned physicist Richard Garwin (one of the inventors of the hydrogen bomb), was recently asked about the promise of sonoluminescent fusion. He replied, "I think you will find the the whole thing will just go away". IEC and the Polwell will be no different.
Song of Deborah
...They chose new gods; then was war in the gates... Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song... the LORD made you have dominion over the mighty... Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty... Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land rest forty years. Judges 5.
Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That Trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran shock and awe agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kessler now.
Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918
Post a Comment