Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Shuurai <shuurai11@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
I seriously doubt that you've taken any advanced math, Mr. "Lottery
odds are calculated by the government using algorithms too complicated
for average people" Hal.
yea, right, liar. I explained that one. I simply didn't know how
they selected numbers and how many because I wasn't stupid enough to
play the lottery so had no idea how it worked.
LOL! I guess you still don't get it. Regardless of how many numbers
there are or how they are selected, the general principle is the same;
so that excuse just doesn't fly. And in any event, your claim was
that the odds were "too complicated" to calculate and that they were a
government secret; which is utterly ridiculous no matter what.
Face it, Hal. It was yet another example of you talking out of your
ass and getting called on it.
If I knew the numbers
calculating the odds is as easy as plugging them into the right
equation, which you don't even know.
I gave you the equation and explained it to you, dummy. If you need
to be reminded, check the archives. If you're going to keep lying
like this, at least make an attempt to be less transparent.
And for the record, you were whipped soundly on the subject on energy
generation. Not just by me, but by everyone else who wanted a turn.
The fact that you're bringing it up now, in a desperate attempt to
change the subject, is very telling.
liar. Nobody did any such thing.
Everybody did, Hal. You pulled a train and you know it.
Try a cite if you think so. I'm the
one who explain Ohm's law in detail and why it proved you were wrong.
No. What you did is copy and paste the Wikipedia definition of Ohm's
law and then claim that it supported your position, while
demonstrating no understanding whatsoever of the law, or even of your
position. You were asked by several people, including myself, to
explain yourself - and you failed. What little you did try to expound
on was wrong, and was pointed out as such.
Now all you can do is keep repeating the same lies. You lost, get
over it. They don't have to spin generators down to save generation
and I explained why, and you still don't understand.
You didn't explain anything. You blurted out some shit about Ohm's
law, and had that shoved back in your face. Then you blurted out some
shit about the fact that your portable Coleman makes different noises
depending on demand, and had that shoved back in your face. Then you
blurted out some shit about peaker plants, and had that shoved back in
your face.
I never said that they "have to spin down generators in order to save
generation" - in fact, the whole point was explaining to you that they
do NOT spin them down in response to minor fluctuations, and WHY they
do not spin them down.
The fact that you keep misrepresenting my position on the subject
indicates that you are either extremely desperate and intellectually
dishonest, or just too flat out stupid to actually understand what was
being talked about. More than likely both.
.
- References:
- Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Jerry B. Altzman
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Mike K.
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Mike K.
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Shuurai
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: Shuurai
- Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- From: hal
- Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- Prev by Date: Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- Next by Date: Re: Dislike Obama? You must be racist.
- Previous by thread: Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- Next by thread: Re: Why scientists are seldom Republicans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|