Equating "Appeal to authority" with "Appeal to popularity" is no way to win a logical argument. One has at least bare credentials of evidence, one doesn't.

You are a climatologist who doesn't believe in man made global warming? Or you just think of yourself as "special"?

I am authorized to tell you it's not VB6.

BTW, do you have the MouseWheel addon installed so you can actually scroll your form and module code with minimal effort? I mean it's not like a scrolling mouse was invented long before VB6 appeared.

You've already disqualified yourself.

Then you haven not used FileMaker, the VB 6 IDE, or any VB 6 app.

Most religious fanatics I know are among the happiest people I know. Do you have any evidence that these people are miserable?

True, but intellectually rigorous people will strive to keep the strength of that belief in proportion to the evidence for it.

A strange wonder one of OSC friends would apologize for him. Too bad that rant is full of false premises and misdirection. If you ask for evidence, take from just one of many the TJ reference. He believed the exact opposite of what JI cherry picked. I might have enjoyed a real attempt at the core this debate which he finally got around to here:

I agree with this statement because I believe it to be philosophically sound. However, what you and it's author don't weigh in on is whether you would do business with nefarious organization bent on subduing and inculcating the world's population with extreme views by modern standards questions of fine art aside.

I chose not too. And I won't be renting it from the library either. Maybe that's a gray area for you, but financial contributions to such an entity not okay for me.

are the ones most likely to experience it.

It's really a lot easier to deal with this stuff if you know rigorous ways of thinking and the very basis of this is knowing the difference between knowledge and belief AKA the Socratic method. Certitude is not knowledge and shouldn't be treated so.

Which "Lord" is that? UP?

What "facts" did this inform you of?

A(nother) failed attempt at poo-poo from a denialist:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/04/how-humans-cause-earthquakes/

That study may very well be accurate, but it does nothing to support your original point. However, it is consistent with your approach of making a bold and false statement and defending it with strawmen and red herrings. I'm not interested in all these diversions and lies presented.

Wrong try again although I suspect your delusion will persist.

Sure, but empty lots existed before Wal-Mart and will do so after it's gone. This point doesn't even defend your original statement directly. Only if you leave to reader to assume Wal-Mart has forced out all or very nearly all competition. This is just fiction.

You answered how. I asked why.

If there are so many then I have to assume it's easy for you to cite a 10,000+ population center with the only available grocer as being Walmart. Can you name one such instance, or are you just assuming their market monopoly and claiming knowledge on it?

Do you want to know why Wal-Mart's pricing is so low? It's because reality is the exact opposite of your delusion. Wal-Mart hasn't eliminated the competition. ISP's have therefore you pay more and get less.

Because for utility like services, the barrier to entry is extraordinarily high, dangerous, or otherwise seemed some sort of national threat.. Also for these reasons, competition is scarce. Again this warrants government intervention since there aren't any grocery store monopolies in any major urban center and I believe nearly all population centers greater than 10,000 has multiple chains and likely distributors servicing them. Yet in the 150,000 population city I live near, you have 1 option for wired internet with speeds greater than 1.5 Mbps. The second major competitor sold out when the city in question refused to let them lay their warehouse of fiber since that would upset the monopoly.

This all seems obvious. I don't supposed you hate any "guberment" programs in general and as such are unwilling to look at reality?