I must agree with the "less talk" portion of your statement, but the repetitive suggestion of suicide doesn't really appeal to me. May I suggest some music instead? HTH.

It seems the author of the comment you replied to indicated agreement with your position in a follow-up post nearly two hours before you posted comment #48127499. Additionally, I happened to note the difference between the photoelectric effect and GR nearly an hour before your post. I am becoming increasingly curious why there appears to be a higher than normal rate of errors and repetition in this particular comment thread. However, I freely admit that my stated perception of that error rate is clearly a speculative utterance in the absence of a much greater volume of sample data.

Now you've managed to add formal fallacy to your list of errors, and in a most unfortunate manner with an appeal to deductive reasoning where the substance of said appeal is itself clearly disjointed. It appears you originally commented without considering the logical flow of statements you were replying to, and are now more interested in diversion for ego protection than in admission that you erred.

It also seems you're beginning to exhibit a rather emotionally-driven reaction to these points. Do you have any scented candles? Lavender is said to have a calming effect. That said, your decision to link an image of a Glock 17 also reminds me of the calming effect the aroma of Ballistol (caveat: always use in well-ventilated spaces, do not deliberately concentrate and inhale contents, etc) can have on the mind. The cleanliness of a sidearm is a key factor in its reliability over the long term, and few things are more calming than confidence in defensive capabilities.

You're incorrect again, but your quotation provides provides a wonderful demonstration of why context is important. Let's review the original comment in full (emphasis via bold text and consequent implication in brackets are are mine):

Clearly, the comment discusses the potential for Einstein to have received a Nobel Prize in physics for GR. It does not make any claims regarding receipt of a Nobel Prize for other work. Finally, the comment was in reply to a preceding blurb, which reads as follows:

You may put down the shovel any time you like. By the way, are you by any chance employed by a mainstream media outlet? I ask because such organizations have a long-standing history of distortion via exclusion of context.

Perhaps you should focus on the researchers who appear to have, in large part at least, validated the energy production of the device. Are they lying? If you say they are, you must be able to provide proof of that.

Rossi's time in prison was due to uncleared allegations of tax fraud and toxic waste mishandling, which even if true would have little to do with this story. Crying "felon" looks a bit too close to a disingenuous smear tactic in this case.

As an aside, it's worth noting that many people who have been to prison are quite intelligent, and extended periods of confinement can provide plenty of time for thought (invention).

Clearly, the answer is horizontal scaling rather than vertical. We simply need to convert the human pyramid into a human centipede.

The photoelectric effect and general relativity are not the same thing. Please read the GP comment again.

You've managed to miss the point while proving it, which I must say is an impressive accomplishment. The point is that the majority of the population of MX lacks the fiscal resources to purchase Starbucks beverages for precisely the reason you've noted. This is why a reply of "first world problems" is either funny or sad (perhaps both) irrespective of the buying power of a small fraction of the population of any region where a business with relatively expensive products happens to open a storefront. To help reinforce the point, you may wish to reference a list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

What's a former Marine?

You're welcome to implement whatever you want yourself. Incidentally, my original UID (circa 1998) was considerably lower than yours, for whatever that's worth.

My comment was in reply to the posts made by Osgeld and the AC that followed, not to you. Thus, I never said you appear to have a poor understanding of electricity. Quite to the contrary, I was providing a correction for the erroneous statements made by the aforementioned posters. However, I would be remiss if I failed to note that factual observations and contradictions of untrue statements are not intrinsically belittling, although accusations of such intent are frequently made in an appeal to emotional sensitivity by those who wish to deflect attention from flawed positions. I have no interest in taking extraordinary measures to avoid bruising fragile egos, and thus I tend to ignore appeals to emotion and focus further on points which are apparent sensitivity zones. If anything, such areas frequently deserve even closer critical examination.

This is grossly incorrect. The car is a a much better conductor to ground than a human body. Even leaving the metal portion of a car aside, rubber becomes an rather good conductor at the power levels provided by a lightning strike, certainly a better conductor than your body. Where are you getting your misinformation?

Incorrect. While occupying the interior of a vehicle would afford better protection than you'd get standing alone, you wouldn't have to be fully inside the car for it to afford some protection in the event of a lightning strike. Merely being in contact with the door handle would create a condition whereby the car provides a more conductive path to ground than your body. You appear to have a poor understanding of electricity. Incidentally, rubber becomes more conductive at power levels approaching those supplied by lightning strikes.

If you live in MX, odds are good you aren't trading nearly the amount of currency the GP is yielding on a daily basis for that take friendliness. Therein lies the essence of a first world problem.

What do the Village People have to do with this? Is it fun to work at the old CIA?