Discussion:
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
(too old to reply)
Claudius Denk
2017-07-28 22:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
Solving Tornadoes
2017-07-29 16:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
Claudius Denk
2017-07-30 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Claudius Denk
2017-08-01 03:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
It means stupidity is prevalent.
James McGinn
2018-04-02 17:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.

It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-02 20:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
Sergio
2018-04-02 20:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
If McGinn is sane, what does this mean ?

If Denk is McGinn, and not sane, what does this mean ?

if Snotty Pornadoes is insane Denk, and both are locked up, what does
this mean ?



it means we are all safe still breathing in the air which has 20% to 80%
relative humidity or "WATER VAPOR" in it.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html
James McGinn
2018-04-02 20:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
Since you believe it you test it.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-02 23:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
Since you believe it you test it.
Science doesn't work that way. You are the guy calling out mainstream science so you are the guy who gets to prove them wrong. Didn't Dr. Saykally teach you anything? Here, I'll remind you again...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
James McGinn
2018-04-02 23:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
Since you believe it you test it.
Science doesn't work that way. You are the guy calling out mainstream science so you are the guy who gets to prove them wrong. Didn't Dr. Saykally teach you anything? Here, I'll remind you again...
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
If you two losers, yourself and Saykally, had valid arguments you wouldn't need political tactics.

You got nothing!!!
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-02 23:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
It means lot of things. It means major scientific institutions are based on a false premise.
Yeah. That's what it means.
It also means that when humans are presented with convoluted rhetoric they tend to believe it even though they can't explain why they believe it.
Just like you can't explain why you believe that water vapor cannot exist below its boiling point... no experiments, no evidence, no support whatsoever, all we have is your word... but no one believes your own special convoluted rhetoric... you better run, because you don't have a leg to stand on...
Since you believe it you test it.
Science doesn't work that way. You are the guy calling out mainstream science so you are the guy who gets to prove them wrong. Didn't Dr. Saykally teach you anything? Here, I'll remind you again...
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
If you two losers, yourself and Saykally, had valid arguments you wouldn't need political tactics.
You got nothing!!!
I think we all know just who the Loser is around here... Jim!

https://tinyurl.com/yb2jhrl2
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-03 00:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
You got nothing!!!
What part of this do you not understand?

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
James McGinn
2018-04-03 00:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
You got nothing!!!
What part of this do you not understand?
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
LOL. You are admitting that you believe the popular notion is exempt from scrutiny. Sorry to burst your bubble, dumbass. But this isn't science. This is the epitome of pseudoscience.

Find another hobby.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-03 01:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
You got nothing!!!
What part of this do you not understand?
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
LOL. You are admitting that you believe the popular notion is exempt from scrutiny. Sorry to burst your bubble, dumbass. But this isn't science. This is the epitome of pseudoscience.
Find another hobby.
You are completely stupid and totally unaware of it.

I readily admit that no mainstream theory (or any theory, for that matter) is exempt from scrutiny, that's what science is all about. If anyone can disprove a mainstream theory he/she would probably earn a Nobel Prize. That's how science works. You don't understand this, of course, and therefore think that your blather actually is valuable, but since you don't know what you don't know, you've really got nothing... which is what everyone has been trying to tell you for years!

https://tinyurl.com/yca2435

https://tinyurl.com/y84b839o

https://tinyurl.com/y98wwxnr
James McGinn
2018-04-03 02:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
You got nothing!!!
What part of this do you not understand?
"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally
is the epitome of pseudoscience.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Find another hobby.
You are completely stupid and totally unaware of it.
I readily admit that no mainstream theory (or any theory, for that matter) is exempt from scrutiny,
You should contact Saykally and explain that to him. Then you should start contacting all the meteorologists and climatologists.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-03 02:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
I readily admit that no mainstream theory (or any theory, for that matter) is exempt from scrutiny,
You should contact Saykally and explain that to him. Then you should start contacting all the meteorologists and climatologists.
Dr. Saykally obviously already knows this, as do virtually ALL scientists, it is YOU who is ignorant about how science works. You just don't have a clue.
Sylvia Else
2017-08-01 03:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.

Sylvia.
Serg io
2017-08-01 04:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?

be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Sylvia Else
2017-08-01 04:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.

Sylvia.
James McGinn
2017-08-01 17:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.
Sylvia.
Sylvia, you are an idiot without a point. You are a troll. That is all you are. Die troll.
Claudius Denk
2017-09-17 17:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.
Retarded non argument.
p***@gmail.com
2017-09-17 20:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.
Retarded non argument.
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Claudius Denk
2017-09-17 21:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.
Retarded non argument.
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Your abject failure to find evidence of "cold steam" is the only argument I need.
p***@gmail.com
2017-09-17 21:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Your abject failure to find evidence of "cold steam" is the only argument I need.
Jim, you incredible dumbfuck, I have never even looked for evidence of 'cold steam', since I have no idea what it is... because *you* are too much of a coward to provides your own definition of the phrase.

Your abject failure to provide such a definition is the only argument I need... coward...
James McGinn
2017-09-18 15:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Your abject failure to find evidence of "cold steam" is the only argument I need.
Jim, you incredible dumbfuck, I have never even looked for evidence of 'cold steam', since I have no idea what it is... because *you* are too much of a coward to provides your own definition of the phrase.
Your abject failure to provide such a definition is the only argument I need... coward...
Desperation.
James McGinn
2017-09-19 01:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yep
Claudius Denk
2017-09-21 16:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Your abject failure to find evidence of "cold steam" is the only argument I need.
Jim, you incredible dumbfuck, I have never even looked for evidence of 'cold steam', since I have no idea what it is...
Desperate liar.
James McGinn
2018-02-26 19:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by p***@gmail.com
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
Your abject failure to find evidence of "cold steam" is the only argument I need.
Jim, you incredible dumbfuck, I have never even looked for evidence of 'cold steam', since I have no idea what it is...
Desperate liar.
Serq io
2017-09-18 04:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Claudius Denk
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn right about what ?
his left shoe is un-tied ?
he is still holding his right hand on his head ?
his bicycle has a flat ?
be specific, McGinn right about WHAT ?
Given the context, I think "Right" means "Right about water vapour and
steam". Since he's clearly wrong about that stuff, my comment follows.
Retarded non argument.
That's all you have, Jim, retarded non arguments...
notice James McGinn is not denying he is a retard.

Jim, do you have any evidence you are not a retard ? Present it.
James McGinn
2017-08-01 17:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
Pedantic ass.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-04-03 03:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
Pedantic ass.
Fully agree about this, James.
Sergio
2018-04-03 17:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
Pedantic ass.
Fully agree about this, James.
McGinn is always non-scientific flatulence.
James McGinn
2018-04-03 18:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
Pedantic ass.
Fully agree about this, James.
McGinn is always non-scientific flatulence.
Uh, Arindam was referring to Sylvia, dumbass.

So, Sergio, have you ever noticed how my posts have ten to a hundred more views than do yours.

Why do you think that is?
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-03 21:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
So, Sergio, have you ever noticed how my posts have ten to a hundred more views than do yours.
Why do you think that is?
Because somehow people are attracted to trainwrecks...
Odd Bodkin
2018-04-03 23:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
So, Sergio, have you ever noticed how my posts have ten to a hundred
more views than do yours.
Why do you think that is?
Because somehow people are attracted to trainwrecks...
For some people, attention is the only currency that matters. These people
are the ones that dress like Gumby on the subway, that write letters to the
newspaper editor to rant about issues they don’t really care about, and
that post YouTube videos explaining their unappreciated but revolutionary
insights.

These people will sometimes deflect from the true root motivation of
attention-whoring, and they will claim that only want to stand out because
a) agreeing with others is being a sheep, b) it is a virtue to be an
iconoclast, a “different-thinker”, c) the hallmark of a true genius is to
go against the grain. Unfortunately, these are nothing more than painted
masks in almost all cases, covering a deep anxiety about being invisible.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Sergio
2018-04-04 16:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
So, Sergio, have you ever noticed how my posts have ten to a hundred more views than do yours.
Why do you think that is?
Because somehow people are attracted to trainwrecks...
I think James McGinn is using google groups, which ups the # of views to
the poster, if he posts a lot on one subject, a technique used by google
to keep viewers engaged.

there was a guy in sci.math, that posted from 1996 to 2010, like James
Mcginn, in a way, but JSH knew some math, but a kinder person, but it
was still poor math, and he could get very long strings going, James
harris, used to use JSH in the subject line. He had some really wacko
stuff going at times. Surrogate factoring algorithm. he did put a lot of
effort into his posts.

JSH was going for # of views too, but realized he was in the google
bubble, the #s reported to him on his computer, where far higher than
what was real, a technique used by google to keep viewers engaged. But
after this was brought up, and he checked using others computers, not
signing in to google, he found much lower numbers, and he moved to Tweeter.


he was such a famous crank, that all of his posts are enshrined here;

https://hismath.blogspot.ru/

McGinn, you could pull from that database and repost his stuff as yours.
Lofty Goat
2018-04-07 02:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... there was a guy in sci.math, that posted from 1996 to 2010, like
James Mcginn, in a way, but JSH knew some math....
Dear god but that does bring back a few memories. Do you recall Marcus
Bruckner's "black helicopter" post about how civilization would fall and
dogs and cats would live in harmony once Harris used his magic factoring
algorithm to remake the world closer to his heart's desire?

This:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gYZ10t_VTOI/6SsDkJqUIFoJ

I needed to laugh uncontrollably for a while. That did it.
--
Goat
Sergio
2018-04-07 04:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lofty Goat
... there was a guy in sci.math, that posted from 1996 to 2010, like
James Mcginn, in a way, but JSH knew some math....
Dear god but that does bring back a few memories. Do you recall Marcus
Bruckner's "black helicopter" post about how civilization would fall and
dogs and cats would live in harmony once Harris used his magic factoring
algorithm to remake the world closer to his heart's desire?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gYZ10t_VTOI/6SsDkJqUIFoJ
I needed to laugh uncontrollably for a while. That did it.
that one is hilarious!
(assumes JSH's factoring algorithum works to 15)

partial quote;

" But then the other horrible consequences. Millions of
secret codes decoded. Hackers suck all the money out
of banks. Fort Knox is broken into and looted. Paris
Hilton's cell phone: she starts getting calls from roofing
contractors. The horror! Bernard Madoff's cell number.
Criminals roaming the streets. People starving. The Dow
Jones plunges to 12.073. Cannibals, ghouls, vampires roam the
streets, exchanging recipes. Dogs and cats, living together.
You, meanwhile, in your private black helicopter, circling,
looking down on it all. The glory! The glory! People
clamoring: We Must Have a King! We Demand the New King!
Where is our Savior? Where? Confess with thy mouth, James
Harris is Lord. Sackcloth and ashes, garments rent beyond
repair, naked women running desperately to throw themselves
at the King. Take me! No, ME! Oh, James, tell us
again how you factored 15! Sodom and Gomorrah, especially
Gomorrah. A New World Order, with the wise and generous
- but stern and just - James Harris as its Emperor. And mathematics
doomed to start over at mid-19th-century, when the fatal
mistake - cum hoc, ergo propter hoc - was made. Andrew
Wiles, worshipped now only by Satanists, hiding out in
some cave. James Harris, bigger than Jesus. "


..........................back then........

UA was really great excellent writer, by my standards,
and I think Arturo had an excellent website with calculators for very
large numbers, factoring, etc, but I cant find it
Lofty Goat
2018-04-07 18:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sergio
Post by Lofty Goat
... there was a guy in sci.math, that posted from 1996 to 2010, like
James Mcginn, in a way, but JSH knew some math....
Dear god but that does bring back a few memories. Do you recall Marcus
Bruckner's "black helicopter" post about how civilization would fall and
dogs and cats would live in harmony once Harris used his magic factoring
algorithm to remake the world closer to his heart's desire?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/gYZ10t_VTOI/6SsDkJqUIFoJ
I needed to laugh uncontrollably for a while. That did it.
that one is hilarious!
(assumes JSH's factoring algorithum works to 15)
partial quote;
" But then the other horrible consequences. Millions of
secret codes decoded. Hackers suck all the money out
of banks. Fort Knox is broken into and looted. Paris
Hilton's cell phone: she starts getting calls from roofing
contractors. The horror! Bernard Madoff's cell number.
Criminals roaming the streets. People starving. The Dow
Jones plunges to 12.073. Cannibals, ghouls, vampires roam the
streets, exchanging recipes. Dogs and cats, living together.
You, meanwhile, in your private black helicopter, circling,
looking down on it all. The glory! The glory! People
clamoring: We Must Have a King! We Demand the New King!
Where is our Savior? Where? Confess with thy mouth, James
Harris is Lord. Sackcloth and ashes, garments rent beyond
repair, naked women running desperately to throw themselves
at the King. Take me! No, ME! Oh, James, tell us
again how you factored 15! Sodom and Gomorrah, especially
Gomorrah. A New World Order, with the wise and generous
- but stern and just - James Harris as its Emperor. And mathematics
doomed to start over at mid-19th-century, when the fatal
mistake - cum hoc, ergo propter hoc - was made. Andrew
Wiles, worshipped now only by Satanists, hiding out in
some cave. James Harris, bigger than Jesus. "
..........................back then........
UA was really great excellent writer, by my standards,
and I think Arturo had an excellent website with calculators for very
large numbers, factoring, etc, but I cant find it
That remark about "how you factored 15" refers to an earlier post
pointing out that the magic factorization algorithm didn't work for
numbers larger than 15. An, the days of youth and innocence.
--
Goat
Arindam Banerjee
2018-04-04 16:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass.
James McGinn
2018-04-04 22:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.

To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-04 22:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.
To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
It means Roy Masters is forever talking to himself...
Twenty aliases... to show the board...
Sergio
2018-04-09 01:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.
To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
It means Roy Masters is forever talking to himself...
Twenty aliases... to show the board...
roy masters, even though he was jewish, is worser than rock penetrating
radar,
I was invited by didnt join that padanick squad.


Arindam Banerjee
2018-04-09 18:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.
Welcome, James.
Post by James McGinn
To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
True. The clod Odd and the anal banal pnal, are the classic examples of narrow-minded pedantry - but to do them justice, they are not the vicious or fanatical sort of pedant, like benj or Sylvia. Prochak is the nicer sort of pedant, he is polite at least.

Sergio shows a broad range of interests, and is always interesting.
James McGinn
2018-04-09 18:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.
Welcome, James.
Post by James McGinn
To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
True. The clod Odd and the anal banal pnal, are the classic examples of narrow-minded pedantry - but to do them justice, they are not the vicious or fanatical sort of pedant, like benj or Sylvia. Prochak is the nicer sort of pedant, he is polite at least.
Sergio shows a broad range of interests, and is always interesting.
Well, actually Sergio is not a pedantic ass. To be pedantic you must have at least some intelligence. Sergio is too dimwitted to be pedantic. He's just an ass.

Sergio presents no arguments because he is a dingbat who doesn't understand any of this. Most of the others evade making arguments because they know they will lose and lose badly.

Much of science is based on simple models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of consensus-based dunces. Professional scientists go along with it as a matter of job security because the public has an inexhaustible thirst for simple models.

Think about it. The natural sciences is dictated by our understanding of H2O. Our understanding of H2O is artificially simplified in order to appeal to the millions upon millions of brain dead retards who throw hissy fits anytime somebody tries to introduce a model that actually explains what is actually observed.

Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-10 03:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.

Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations, but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!

If you think I'm wrong, Jim, well, let's see your evidence... go ahead show us those experiments and observations, if you can. Otherwise, sayonara...
James McGinn
2018-04-10 20:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.
Empty claim.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations,
Where is your evidence?

but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!
Post by p***@gmail.com
If you think I'm wrong, Jim, well, let's see your evidence...
T

Go to a search engine and search this: Anomalies of H2O. That is my evidence.

When your theory has resolved all of the anomalies you can begin to brag about how good it is. Until then you just identify yourself as a fool to be making such claims.
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-11 00:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.
Empty claim.
Oh bullshit.
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations,
Where is your evidence?
Where is my evidence that you have no experimental data to share? Where is my evidence that you have no observations to share? I guess I don't have any evidence that you have evidence, you dunce...
Post by James McGinn
but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!
Go to a search engine and search this: Anomalies of H2O. That is my evidence.
OK, Jim, I did this and got about 621,000 hits. I read a number of these hits and you know what I found? Many of them actually claim that water can have a gaseous state! Can you believe it?
Post by James McGinn
When your theory has resolved all of the anomalies you can begin to brag about how good it is. Until then you just identify yourself as a fool to be making such claims.
I have no theory, Jim, and therefore have nothing to prove. You, on the other hand, have LOTS to prove... so get started... let's see your evidence to support your really fucked-up theories, either man-up or go home empty-handed.

https://tinyurl.com/y8m4wlhr
James McGinn
2018-04-11 00:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.
Empty claim.
Oh bullshit.
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations,
Where is your evidence?
Where is my evidence that you have no experimental data to share? Where is my evidence that you have no observations to share? I guess I don't have any evidence that you have evidence, you dunce...
Post by James McGinn
but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!
Go to a search engine and search this: Anomalies of H2O. That is my evidence.
OK, Jim, I did this and got about 621,000 hits. I read a number of these hits and you know what I found? Many of them actually claim that water can have a gaseous state! Can you believe it?
Post by James McGinn
When your theory has resolved all of the anomalies you can begin to brag about how good it is. Until then you just identify yourself as a fool to be making such claims.
I have no theory, Jim, and therefore have nothing to prove.
That's right. You got nothing!!!
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-11 00:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.
Empty claim.
Oh bullshit.
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations,
Where is your evidence?
Where is my evidence that you have no experimental data to share? Where is my evidence that you have no observations to share? I guess I don't have any evidence that you have evidence, you dunce...
Post by James McGinn
but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!
Go to a search engine and search this: Anomalies of H2O. That is my evidence.
OK, Jim, I did this and got about 621,000 hits. I read a number of these hits and you know what I found? Many of them actually claim that water can have a gaseous state! Can you believe it?
Post by James McGinn
When your theory has resolved all of the anomalies you can begin to brag about how good it is. Until then you just identify yourself as a fool to be making such claims.
I have no theory, Jim, and therefore have nothing to prove.
That's right. You got nothing!!!
Great answer, Jim, just ignore all the questions in order to avoid the embarrassment...
James McGinn
2018-04-11 04:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's that you, apparently, feel no embarrassment that is more concerning to me.

Thank you for your participation.
Sergio
2018-04-11 13:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
Of course it is, Jim, you finally got something right! Congratulations. That's why mainstream science is not even close to being consensus-driven but rather is supported by experiment and/or observations, which can be reproduced by anyone with the correct tools.
Empty claim.
Oh bullshit.
Post by James McGinn
Post by p***@gmail.com
Unfortunately, your own pathetic theories are not supported by either experiments or observations,
Where is your evidence?
Where is my evidence that you have no experimental data to share? Where is my evidence that you have no observations to share? I guess I don't have any evidence that you have evidence, you dunce...
Post by James McGinn
but rather by your own crazy ramblings, which are as worthless as tits on a bullfrog... which make *your* theories pseudoscience!
Go to a search engine and search this: Anomalies of H2O. That is my evidence.
OK, Jim, I did this and got about 621,000 hits. I read a number of these hits and you know what I found? Many of them actually claim that water can have a gaseous state! Can you believe it?
Post by James McGinn
When your theory has resolved all of the anomalies you can begin to brag about how good it is. Until then you just identify yourself as a fool to be making such claims.
I have no theory, Jim, and therefore have nothing to prove.
That's right. You got nothing!!!
Great answer, Jim, just ignore all the questions in order to avoid the embarrassment...
McGinn posts here only when he wants to get hit in the head with a
frying pan, I guess he like it. His sentences are short, so he is pissed.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-04-10 03:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Post by Arindam Banerjee
By no stretch of imagination can James be called a pedantic ass
Thanks Arindam.
Welcome, James.
Post by James McGinn
To be fair, Sergio can't be called pedantic.
True. The clod Odd and the anal banal pnal, are the classic examples of narrow-minded pedantry - but to do them justice, they are not the vicious or fanatical sort of pedant, like benj or Sylvia. Prochak is the nicer sort of pedant, he is polite at least.
Sergio shows a broad range of interests, and is always interesting.
Well, actually Sergio is not a pedantic ass. To be pedantic you must have at least some intelligence. Sergio is too dimwitted to be pedantic. He's just an ass.
Sergio presents no arguments because he is a dingbat who doesn't understand any of this. Most of the others evade making arguments because they know they will lose and lose badly.
Much of science is based on simple models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of consensus-based dunces. Professional scientists go along with it as a matter of job security because the public has an inexhaustible thirst for simple models.
Well, this is both true and untrue. e=mcc appeals to the public mind because it is simple mathematically so appears profound; but all the math mumbo-jumbo behind this appeals also as it creates a sense of awe, like it is all beyond us so it must be correct for all of these guys (like the esteemed weavers of the naked king) say so.

The public has the money, and getting it is the job of the e=mcc=hv weavers of nonsense layered by beyond-sense mathematical models.
Post by James McGinn
Think about it. The natural sciences is dictated by our understanding of H2O. Our understanding of H2O is artificially simplified in order to appeal to the millions upon millions of brain dead retards who throw hissy fits anytime somebody tries to introduce a model that actually explains what is actually observed.
I can understand your frustration. Water is immensely important. It must be studied and analysed from the atomic level, to understand its properties. The electrical effects of water is much ignored. I don't know why.
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
I fully agree, for the very basis of the scientific method as started by da VInci (to separate it from the reigning university stress on religious dogma) is its "provisionality". All scientific notions are PROVISIONAL unlike religious dogma, about which the notions are beyond debate among the believers; though interpretations of the same unquestioned thingies are allowed up to a point.

To detach science from the aspect of "provisionality" which means that scientists must always be open to new and better ways to understand nature, is anti-scientific. The anti-scientific attitude leads to the reign of pseudoscience. With pseudoscientists masquerading as scientists, and fooling the public with mumbo-jumbo much as they did in the Dark Ages where dogmas ruled minds.

As you too have found, all these establishment types are pseudo-scientists pouring out dogmas they have managed to fit into their small minds, which will never change.

The only thing superior about these e=mcc=hv howler monkeys is the strength of their numbers.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
James McGinn
2018-04-10 20:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Much of science is based on simple models that appeal to the lowest common denominator of consensus-based dunces. Professional scientists go along with it as a matter of job security because the public has an inexhaustible thirst for simple models.
Well, this is both true and untrue. e=mcc appeals to the public mind
because it is simple mathematically so appears profound;
I agree.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
but all the math mumbo-jumbo behind this appeals also as it creates a
sense of awe,
Exactly!!! Religions have miracles to create a sense of awe. Scientific theories have surreal beliefs. For example, Einstein said Space-time is a fabric that can be bent. Is this literally true? No. It just creates a sense of awe.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
like it is all beyond us so it must be correct for all of these guys
(like the esteemed weavers of the naked king) say so.
That's right. The emperor is naked. Humans believe what they are told is true regardless of whether it makes sense or not. It's impossible to reason with these retards.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The public has the money, and getting it is the job of the e=mcc=hv
weavers of nonsense layered by beyond-sense mathematical models.
I don't know about this.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Think about it. The natural sciences is dictated by our understanding of H2O. Our understanding of H2O is artificially simplified in order to appeal to the millions upon millions of brain dead retards who throw hissy fits anytime somebody tries to introduce a model that actually explains what is actually observed.
I can understand your frustration. Water is immensely important. It
must be studied and analysed from the atomic level, to understand
its properties. The electrical effects of water is much ignored.
I don't know why.
There are a whole host of reason's involving taboo, superstition, consensus belief, academic arrogance/laziness, and confusion. But mostly it's a testament to how sheepish humans are. About 70 or 80 years ago Linus Pauling laid out some rules of molecular bonding including that for hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules. He did a pretty good job, but he omitted one thing.

I am putting together a presentation including PowerPoint visuals that will fully explicate Pauling's Omission. This will set the stage for a huge conceptual breakthrough in our understanding of H2O, specifically involving the resolution of all of its anomalies.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by James McGinn
Consensus driven science is pseudoscience.
I fully agree, for the very basis of the scientific method as started by da VInci (to separate it from the reigning university stress on religious dogma) is its "provisionality". All scientific notions are PROVISIONAL unlike religious dogma, about which the notions are beyond debate among the believers; though interpretations of the same unquestioned thingies are allowed up to a point.
Right. When believers encounter a scientific truth they immediately begin to look for ways to minimize it's shortcomings and the amplify it credibility. Scientists do the opposite.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
To detach science from the aspect of "provisionality" which means that scientists must always be open to new and better ways to understand nature, is anti-scientific. The anti-scientific attitude leads to the reign of pseudoscience. With pseudoscientists masquerading as scientists, and fooling the public with mumbo-jumbo much as they did in the Dark Ages where dogmas ruled minds.
Right.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
As you too have found, all these establishment types are pseudo-scientists pouring out dogmas they have managed to fit into their small minds, which will never change.
Correct. Humans want to believe deeply. Real scientist embrace uncertainty. Consensus seeking weenies seek certainty.

The vast majority of humans are consensus seeking weenies.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
The only thing superior about these e=mcc=hv howler monkeys is the strength of their numbers.
That's right. That's why these retards never have arguments. They believe for the sake of believing.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Serg io
2017-08-04 18:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes





[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]

"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes


James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."


McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,

RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"

after plagiarism found


...................................
from his previous post;

"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.

The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.

You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.

My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "



Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)

"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.

2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."

3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.

4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion

5. I'm not a liar.

6 McGinn is right.

7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.

8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.

9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics

10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.

11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?


12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars

The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.


13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars

This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.

14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.

15. I got nothing!!!
James McGinn
2017-08-04 19:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Steve BH
2018-02-26 21:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Why not? You and Claudius are just one sockpuppet jerking off the other.
James McGinn
2018-02-26 21:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Why not? You and Claudius are just one sockpuppet jerking off the other.
Bitter?
Steve BH
2018-02-26 22:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Why not? You and Claudius are just one sockpuppet jerking off the other.
Bitter?
Whatever floats your boat. You didn't ask Claudius if the happy ending was good for him.
James McGinn
2018-04-02 00:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Why not? You and Claudius are just one sockpuppet jerking off the other.
Bitter?
Whatever floats your boat. You didn't ask Claudius if the happy ending was good for him.
Ser gio
2018-02-26 21:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by James McGinn
Post by Serg io
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
A false proposition implies any proposition.
Sylvia.
McGinn is a troll, and crank, he also goes by Cladius Denk, and snoring
Pornadoes
[the following is from posts by the known troll/crank
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes from the past few days, it shows his ANGER
levels are off the charts, unable to hold a coherent conversation, and
mentions use of LSD, **** are swear words. AP News Article 3987261 Aug
2, 2017]
"you ******* stupid *** and why you think it is relevant SINCE THE ISSUE
UNDER DISCUSSION DOESN'T INVOLVE ANY OF THIS YOU STINKING, SLIMEY
TROLL!!! So the **** what? Do you trolls ever have a relevant point?
No, retard, it is liquid. ******* read the phase diagram you mental
retard. No, *******. What the **** is wrong with you people?
Individually nobody could be a dumb as you all are collectively. So,
everbody in the world except you and your fellow trolls are liars?
Did I get this right? Or am I lying about this too? Do your methods in
any way involve pixie dust? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? LSD? Gary, I
think you have to get out of your bubble and look around every once in a
while. You are not the only person on this planet that has an advanced
theory whose reasonable assertions are being attacked by *******,
brain-dead trolls. you post off topic **** on my video and give me a
lecture ....****you **** you, bubble boy who thinks he is the only
person in the world to ever make a scientific discovery. It's all about
you isn't it, you self-centered, spoiled child. Why don't you throw a
pity party so that you can wallow away into obscurity. ******* SAY IT
WAS A THERMODYNAMIC STABILITY DIAGRAM. It's ******* right there plain as
day. There is nothing to discuss or debate. This is a trivial
artifact that you trolls are blowing all out of proportion. Go find
another hobby, you ******* troll. Wow! You are one amazing ******. This
is such a stupid comment I don' t know how to respond." -
McGinn/Denk/SolventPotatoes
James McGinn's Retraction; "The notion that moist air is always heavier
per volume than dry air is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken.
It is wrong."
McGinn's statement is the result of his final realization that his
unproven theory consists of only science fiction, his imagination and
verbal hand waving that doesn't make any sense to anyone.
Post by Sylvia Else
11/22/14
James McGinn, Mr Solving Tornadoes,
RETRACTS HIS BOOK "Solving Tornadoes"
after plagiarism found
...................................
from his previous post;
"Well, let's just say that it ain't no textbook.
The confusion you are feeling is by design. And it's not so
simple as me having an objection to pandering to my audience.
It's more like I recognize that most consumers of science are
looking for an excuse not to think. I wrote it with with the
intention of giving you no avenue of escape.
You can try to dispute it if you want. But, let's face it,
you're already entangled. If you struggle you'll just become
more entangled. And there's no way out -- without thinking.
Sorry.
My only advice is that if you haven't gotten to the third
chapter yet stop now. But it sounds like it's too late for
that. Oh well. You had a good run. And it's not like me
making you think is some kind of violation of your civil
rights or something. "
Best of James McGinn (all that could be found, could not find any math
or science anywhere)
"1. The internet makes it easy for people with strong beliefs to become
seduced into believing that their beliefs are factual. And that is all
the rationalization they need to start lying.
2. "The notion that moist air is always heavier per volume than dry air
is refuted. It is proven false. It is mistaken. It is wrong."
3. My inability to convince the hindquarters of a dead cow of anything
only reflects on the status of the cow's hindquarters.
4. Scientific methods were developed so that people like you don't turn
science into a religion
5. I'm not a liar.
6 McGinn is right.
7. I concur with McGinn and Denk. Yes, McGinn and Denk are corrects.
8. I think that is just Claudius screwing with you.
9. BTW, I'm even more of an expert on human evolution than I am an
expert on meteorology and physics
10. I am mainstream science... Nobody can contradict this assertion.
11. Can you provide a Denk to any purported reproducible experimental
evidence to substantiate this assertion?
12. McGinn's Book Review: *insane rambling* 1 out of 5 stars
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to
and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many
decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also
does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective
updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that
result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on
reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense
and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even
basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.
13. McGinn Book Review *Waste of time a non-funny joke*
1.0 out of 5 stars
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density,
the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses
metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves
nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading
it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive
self publishing by assholes.
14. You can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure I
am right, but so completely unable to say how or why.
15. I got nothing!!!
I have no problem being compared to Claudius. I hope he feels the same about me.
Why not? You and Claudius are just one sockpuppet jerking off the other.
......McGinn is having another one of his meltdowns.....

by letting off cold steam !
Lofty Goat
2017-09-18 00:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
He never has been, so why worry about it?
--
Goat
Claudius Denk
2017-09-21 16:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lofty Goat
On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:43:50 -0700 (PDT), Claudius Denk
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
He never has been, so why worry about it?
Retard alert.
James McGinn
2017-09-19 01:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It means much if meteorology us bogus
p***@gmail.com
2017-09-19 02:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James McGinn
It means much if meteorology us bogus
Not even an intelligible sentence...
Lofty Goat
2018-04-04 01:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Claudius Denk
If McGinn is Right What Does it Mean?
Jim, if all circles were square, what does it mean?

Norman Kagan wrote a pretty good story about this: "The Four Brands Of
the Impossible". Had you been a reader, I'd recommend it.
--
Goat
AF
2018-04-05 13:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
James McGinn is that lolcow that never seems to run dry.
Odd Bodkin
2018-04-05 15:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AF
James McGinn is that lolcow that never seems to run dry.
lolcow, I have to remember that one
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Loading...