Hereditary=genetics? What kind of a gross over-simplification is that? "Like in Humans, Genes Drive Half of Chimp Intelligence"? Genes don't drive human intelligence. They determine the upper and lower limits that can be achieved with proper nutrition, care and education and a multitude of other factors. More and more factors are being discovered everyday, each diminishing the role of genetics.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content...
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb...

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor.

I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you.

Holy fuck again. You are arguing about something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.

NOW you're arguing against things I did not say years ago. WTF?

You're quoting YOURSELF about things you THOUGHT I said (and we have been over that before) YEARS AGO???

Are you for real? I have asked one attorney and he has referred me to another. So far, that is the truth.

I am going to quote you ]so that there is no way you can pretend you didn't say it:

I don't think you know what "pathological" means, and I don't think you appreciate the HISTORICAL, TIME-HONORED tradition of using a psuedomym. Your problem with that is entirely your own and most people do not share it. Hint: that means it's your issue, dude. Deal with it. You don't get to make it a problem for other people.

Excuse me? Have you even once shown me to make an argument about AGW that was "a lie" (i.e., something I knew to be false)? NO? I mean really, NO? Then what is this all about? (Suggestion: not what you say it is.)

Um, HUH? This makes no sense. I haven't made any "pathological lies". WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS, AND YOU LOST. Where is your failure to understand? It isn't mine, and it isn't right or honest -- or possibly even legal -- that you are trying again to make it my problem.

Yes, indeed! It is going to be interesting to see who is spreading "civilization-paralyzing misinformation". But in the meantime, you don't get to define "misinformation" to be whatever offends your ego. As much as I hate to say it, hat's what courts are for.

I will point out where you have worked to make it ambiguous: you have claimed (just above) that I have spread "misinformation", when in fact, while I have been wrong at times, I have always made a great effotr to make arguments that were fact-based. I might not have always succeeded, but I did better than you. I make no more claim than that right now, but you should pay attention.

"Correlation = causation", with exactly one data point.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Remind me again why Windows has the capability to "inject" a new DLL into a running process from outside the process.

Holy fuck. YOU ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEBODY WHO USED THE SAME (PRETTY DAMNED COMMON) PSEUDONYM, AND SOMEBODY ELSE, GOT THE SAME SPAM, THE SAME YEAR, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING?

Are you for real???

Not only do you demonstrate IGNORANCE of the fact that what you bring up is a SPAM marketing email probably sent to millions, you (illogically) conclude that SOMEBODY ELSE using the "Jane Q. Public" pseudomym was ME, you THEN suggest that someone else responded to the sme spam email sent to millions was ME?

I am beginning to understand where that "97%" claim came from: PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING CLUE HOW STATISTICS ACTUALLY WORK.

You can CHOOSE whether you belong to that group, or shut up. Your choice.

Hint, Mr. clueless dude: these spam messages go out en masse, and they hit hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes millions, AND Jane Q. Public is a pretty GODDAMNED common pseudonym, which is one of the 2 reasons I chose it in the first place.

So I say again: For the sake of all that is reasonable, give up your obsessive quest. The fact that I am forced to describe it that way should be a clue to a person who is at least trying to be reasonable. And your attempt to say I am one of millions, MANY OF WHOM USE THE SAME NAME, is nothing short of ridiculous.

IF YOU CLAIM TO BE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, YOU DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY WHY CLIMATE SCIENCE IS DISTRUSTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE THINKING PUBLIC.

Have a nice day. You worked hard for it. And thanks for the win.

You still don't get it. This is where your logic fails (as it so often has): even if I did link to that file, here is all it REALLY "proves":

1) Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file. This is a rather obvious explanation I have given you several times, but you have refused to even consider it.

2) Point out again where I have denied any such thing. You keep lying about this, then falsely accusing ME of lies when I point it out.

3) (In association with 2): the whole thing is a loaded question. I have no way of answering it honestly because the very question is worded such that in order to answer at all, I must admit to one or more of your fantasies. Score: You: 0

And I will add 4) why does anybody on this earth, except you, care about something that even if it went the way you say it did (which is false) care? ONLY you. Not me. Not anybody else. Except maybe a court of law. You have a weird obsession and it's FAR PAST time you went away.

Let me guess: You are female, yes?

Us males, we have trouser pockets. My iPhone fits all the pockets on all my trousers perfectly. Something that is bigger by just a few centimeters would be uncomfortable or even impossible to put into some of them.

George Washington decreed every landowner put aside up to five acres for hemp production to feed the new navy's hunger for rope. The drug ban arose from the fact hemp was standing in the way of profits from the new wonder thread Nylon (NY + LONdon), yet to this day nylon rope is avoided by mariners because of it's brutal effect on waterlogged hands (feels like razor wire).

Having the stuff on your wrist in a way that may often require you to turn your hand is quite probably no less dangerous than having a phone in your hand.

They're already being replaced by fully-automated trading systems, in a few years we'll wonder why humans ever even did the job in the first place.

Earphone pieces already allow for this. Those from Apple, for example, let you stop, start, skip forward and backward. And it only requires one arm to do it, not both, which is more important in running than having a cute gadget.

Yes, which is why I'm waiting for one that makes me say more then "yeah, cute idea, I would need it twice this century."

And if you did, it would be a handmade analog clock from Switzerland, not a mass-produced electronic gadget from China.

In the tiny nation of Bhutan weed has "invaded", the stuff is like carpet and is impossible to eradicate, the local buddhists don't often consume it themselves rather they consider it free pig food. Or as their foreign minister once put it; "In our nation, the pigs really do fly".

Correction: "Quotes I may (or may not have) made about other people..." should have been "Quotes I may (or may not have) made OF other people..."

But I think what I meant was still pretty clear.