Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Which angle are you attacking from this time? (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47735875) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent

What you fail to see is that the NWO has already come to pass, in a way that guarantees the next guy will be worse.

Is it really fair to call it a NWO when it wasn't his NWO? The conspiracy theories attached to President Lawnchair generally swear that he is going to launch his own NWO, not be another member of a crappy extant one. As I have pointed out many times before, Obama is following the same playbook - for the same masters - as the guys who came before him. It isn't much of a NWO when there is nothing new.

Comment: Re:Which angle are you attacking from this time? (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47735817) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent

What he has achieved, has all gone towards creating more political capital for the Democrats. He's failed on everything else.

Being as pretty much everything he has "achieved" is counter to his campaign promises - and has done little to nothing to help create a distinct image for his party - it seems he has done a really awful job of that.

Comment: Re:LIAR (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47735803) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent

I'm telling you that I have never considered BHO as an "anti-Christ", and I consider joking about such

There is no joke there. The use of "anti-Christ" is simply a reflection of how some use the term. The fact that you use it in a more literal sense than others only shows that there is more than one way to apply that term. If you opt to get your undies all up in a bunch over that, well that is your problem and not mine. I have already explained how I am using the term in this context.

I guess the encouraging news is that the bulk of readers who spend any time perusing these JEs don't really have much respect for either your opinions or your argumentation.

It appears you have opted to channel your inner Pudge, there, with your random assertion about other "readers". How that line in any way follows what you quoted is not the least bit clear:

There is plenty of evidence in your own conspiracy-backed comments to support my claim. In fact the only way that my claim would not be supported by your own comments would be if you either don't actually believe in the conspiracy theories you relentlessly post here, or if you would welcome the nation that would result if they came to fruition.

Comment: Re:It will catch up with them (Score 1) 223

by techno-vampire (#47733057) Attached to: When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model
Currently, we don't have Comcast where I live, although it's probably going to absorb our cable service, TWC. Even if they do, I won't have to worry because I don't use cable internet. Why? Because unlike any cable service I've ever heard of, our phone company (Verizon) still does its best to give us "nine nines" uptime, and outages here are very, very rare and short. I don't spend all my time streaming video or downloading torrents, so I don't need the fastest possible connection, but I do want the most reliable. And, as I used to do tech support for an ISP, the only time I ever call them is when I need a specific technical detail, such as asking if they're filtering a port I need. When they try to insist that they know more about trouble-shooting than I do, I tell them how many years I spent on their side of the phone and ask how good they are with Linux. Generally speaking, that's all it takes to get them to tell me what I need.

Comment: Re:LIAR (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47727843) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent

that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama

No, it does not. You really may wish to consider walking back that "certainly".

Was that all the more of my comment that you read? While your replies - both to JEs and to comments of mine - have supported for some time that you don't read my writings from start to finish, here what you have quoted is such a small snippet as to have lost both its context and meaning. If we go back to what I wrote :

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

There is plenty of evidence in your own conspiracy-backed comments to support my claim. In fact the only way that my claim would not be supported by your own comments would be if you either don't actually believe in the conspiracy theories you relentlessly post here, or if you would welcome the nation that would result if they came to fruition.

Comment: Re:LIAR (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47725929) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent

quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ

I'm confident that you know fully well that I've never made this claim; indeed, I recognize BHO's occasional Christian affectations. I forgive you this deliberate, false troll, but want you to understand that I reject it utterly and call you out as a base liar for saying such.

I apologize if you took my use of the term anti-Christ as being more than euphemistic. In many other circles the term "anti-Christ" is analogous to "anyone who is the embodiment of evil, regardless of religious affiliation (or absence thereof)". From what you have written so far, particularly in light of the conspiracy theories you love to share regarding him, that analogy certainly reflects your view of Obama.

Comment: Re:Which angle are you attacking from this time? (Score 1) 23

by damn_registrars (#47725743) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent
That is an interesting case of you trying to support two countering arguments in one JE, there. Your JE claimed that he was a do-nothing, and now you quickly turned to the other side of your mouth to claim that he is the anti-Christ, poised to launch his new world order at any coming moment.

I would love for you to explain how those two views are not diametrically opposed, but being as you haven't been bothered by them so far in the least I don't expect that you ever will be in the future. When January 2017 draws to a close with a new POTUS and none of the new world order having come to pass I am sure I will find your newest conspiracy theories regarding President Lawnchair to be just as fantastic.

Comment: Re:They all worship the same god (Score 1) 45

by damn_registrars (#47725705) Attached to: A statement to ponder

. . .if you did attempt to read The Communist Manifesto, you completely missed the key point.

I thought that the key point of TCM was: "damn_registrars sports him a fine set of gills; see how trivially he's roped in by a straight up 10th Commandment violation"

Are you referring to Thou shalt not covet? To say that doesn't fit here is an understatement. Too bad Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies isn't one, as you could learn a lot from it.

State, please, for the record, what YOU thought the key point of that scatalogical extravaganza was.

I am not going to read it for you. If you want the Cliff's notes, this is the closest to them I have found. Clearly I cannot motivate you to pursue knowledge, but perhaps they can.

Comment: Re:So far.. (Score 1) 44

by damn_registrars (#47725673) Attached to: Marx sure does spew him some drivel

So what you seem to say is that falling short of agreeing with Marx == not having read him.

You are utterly wrong on that. You are free to read something and disagree with it. You are even free to disagree with what you don't read. However when you refuse to read something, and then parade about pretending to be an expert on it, it is very likely that you will make yourself look foolish (which you have done repeatedly on this case in particular).

There is nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with Marx. What is absurd is you continuing to claim to be knowledgeable on Communism while refusing to read the fundamental text on it. It would be like someone claiming to be knowledgeable on Jesus because they read about him on uncyclopedia.

+ - Cause of global warming 'hiatus' found deep in the Atlantic-> 2

Submitted by vinces99
vinces99 (2792707) writes "Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface. More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.

Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth’s surface. “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. “Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause.”

What they found is that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Nobody else seems to want it (Score 1) 690

by hairyfeet (#47720119) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

It doesn't matter as a core of the OS is being decided by POLITICS, oh and FYI but that PC World article? Its bullshit, its changed a grand total of TWICE in 20 years, from VXD to WDM, from WDM to DF, and you can still use WDM even on Windows 8. I have used XP drivers in Windows 7, that is 14 years of driver support, show me a video of you using a 7 year old driver without playing the make and break game and we'll talk.

If the core of your OS is decided not on its merits but by politics? Then your OS is doomed to become a punchline. BTW the zealots have been making the same excuses for so long that you can break down more than 90% of posts on any Linux article into just the same TMRepo memes, why? Because like Dems and Reps all that matters now is the politics, NOT the OS.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...