Whats this over Norway?

[HillBill]

Oh no. We've not resorted to Internet Hardmen threats, have we? Stop it there.
I'm still not sure what's more addictive and dangerous - crack cocaine or internet discussion forums. Neither achieves anything except making the user look a complete bell-end.

Actually, tad just Pm'd me, and like i told him it would be good to sit round a campfire and have these discussion without google at his disposal. So you read that one wrong mate.

I do not make threats mate. If i wanted to sort something out like that then it would never be mentioned, i'd just turn up at the house and do it. I left that sort of behavior behind a few years back.

 

[Tadpole]

Actually, tad just Pm'd me, and like i told him it would be good to sit round a campfire and have these discussion without google at his disposal. So you read that one wrong mate.

I do not make threats mate. If i wanted to sort something out like that then it would never be mentioned, i'd just turn up at the house and do it. I left that sort of behavior behind a few years back.

to be truthful hillbill did pm me and and threaten me with a slap that never happened at the last moot because I didn’t have the balls to go.

 

[HillBill]

to be truthful hillbill did pm me and and threaten me with a slap that never happened at the last moot because I didn’t have the balls to go.

Thats kind of wrong mate, you want me copy paste my Pm. What i said was that there was someone who was going to give you one at the last, though nothing at all to do with me, only what i was told. Tell it like it is mate, dont twist it.

 

[durulz]

Actually, tad just Pm'd me, and like i told him it would be good to sit round a campfire and have these discussion without google at his disposal. So you read that one wrong mate...

Fair enough. My apologies. Sometimes tone of voice and body language is missing from the written word. It DID sound like a threat though, to be fair. But I accept my mistake.

 

[HillBill]

Fair enough. My apologies. Sometimes tone of voice and body language is missing from the written word. It DID sound like a threat though, to be fair. But I accept my mistake.

No worries mate . I can see how it could be seen as a veiled threat. Not my intention though

 

[Adze]

Bloody wikipedia!
I warn all first year undergraduates that if I EVER see wikipedia on their bibliography they will lose marks. It may be fine for a 10 year old, but not anything beyond that. It is open to such abuse and misinformation that it loses any credibility.
Ditto for most of the information on the internet. Any idiot can start a website and post any old rubbish on it. Why do we accept what we see on the internet as reliable? It's not. It may be absolutely fine for leisure and wasting time, but the internet is not a good resource for academic, high-level, scholarly information. Well, not in the Arts, anyway. May well be fine for other subject areas, but not Arts.
Internet research is lazy and fraught with misinformation.
Anyway. My rant over with.
It doesn't help that I've just marked someone's essay and the bibliography is just a list of websites. I'm not joking. There are...16 websites listed. Think I'll also put it through the checker thingy to see if they've cut'n'pasted anything as well. It's their own fault - I warn them that if I see websites I'll come down on it.
So. Bloody wikipedia.

I tend to disagree, but not with the entirety of what you say. Internet research, simply by merit of it's speed, accessibility and ease of searching, is an excellent place to start.

The dangers of gullibility do not only affect the internet, however, there are plenty of publications, one is listed in this very thread, which appear to rely on flawed research, abuse of information and plain fiction, thusly one must learn to sort the information wheat from the disinformation chaff in print as in pixel. Just as anyone may 'start a website' so they may 'start a magazine' and publish anything they choose.

I agree entirely that only a fool believes everything written on Wikipedia. However, the OED and Britannica are also online - are we similarly to disbelieve everything therein? Of course not.

It is not the medium which is at fault, nor is it the merit of being editable by the general public, who are just people the same as those who publish dusty tomes. It is the error of wooly, complacent thinking which allows one corroborating source to manufacture a 'fact'. All research should be checked and cross referenced with as many different sources as is practicable, regardless of publishing medium. If it is not, then it fails to be research and is no more worthy than "some bloke down the pub told me..."

One advantage of electronic media over paper, as HillBill recently discovered, is when complete cobblers is discovered masquerading as fact on Wikipedia it can be removed staggeringly quickly - in between posts in some cases. Not only does this restore a measure of credence to it , it can also illuminate with great clarity those who will rely blindly upon it.

 

[HillBill]

I tend to disagree, but not with the entirety of what you say. Internet research, simply by merit of it's speed, accessibility and ease of searching, is an excellent place to start.

The dangers of gullibility do not only affect the internet, however, there are plenty of publications, one is listed in this very thread, which appear to rely on flawed research, abuse of information and plain fiction, thusly one must learn to sort the information wheat from the disinformation chaff in print as in pixel. Just as anyone may 'start a website' so they may 'start a magazine' and publish anything they choose.

I agree entirely that only a fool believes everything written on Wikipedia. However, the OED and Britannica are also online - are we similarly to disbelieve everything therein? Of course not.

It is not the medium which is at fault, nor is it the merit of being editable by the general public, who are just people the same as those who publish dusty tomes. It is the error of wooly, complacent thinking which allows one corroborating source to manufacture a 'fact'. All research should be checked and cross referenced with as many different sources as is practicable, regardless of publishing medium. If it is not, then it fails to be research and is no more worthy than "some bloke down the pub told me..."

One advantage of electronic media over paper, as HillBill recently discovered, is when complete cobblers is discovered masquerading as fact on Wikipedia it can be removed staggeringly quickly - in between posts in some cases. Not only does this restore a measure of credence to it , it can also illuminate with great clarity those who will rely blindly upon it.

That was just one reference mate. I provided others. FYI much of my research and work is done the old fashioned way, pen and paper. I have folders and fliles all over the place with my research in to the ancient civs. plenty of which came from before the internet existed or i had any access to it. You see you are PRESUMING that it is rubbish, you do not KNOW weather it is true or not. You have made your opinion, and as such go round proclaiming it to false in a factual way rather than in an opinionated way. You can not explain away the bill of congress with you presumptions, and that bill makes your presumptions invalid as it is clearly a reliable source and clearly says plenty which is all crap to your perception.

Dont state everything as not true mate unless you know and can prove without evidence to the contrary. Like the bill of congress for example.

EDIT. Were all the same mate really, we all post evidence of our opinions and beliefs and we are all to some extent guilty of ignoring the odd bit here and there as this thread proves. Its the same fence mate, we are just on opposite sides of it. We went where we though the grass was greenest and there we sit looking accross the fence to grass neither of us see as green as our own. Funny old world innit.

 

[Adze]

That was just one reference mate. I provided others. FYI much of my research and work is done the old fashioned way, pen and paper. I have folders and fliles all over the place with my research in to the ancient civs. plenty of which came from before the internet existed or i had any access to it. You see you are PRESUMING that it is rubbish, you do not KNOW weather it is true or not. You have made your opinion, and as such go round proclaiming it to false in a factual way rather than in an opinionated way. You can not explain away the bill of congress with you presumptions, and that bill makes your presumptions invalid as it is clearly a reliable source and clearly says plenty which is all crap to your perception.

Dont state everything as not true mate unless you know and can prove without evidence to the contrary. Like the bill of congress for example.

EDIT. Were all the same mate really, we all post evidence of our opinions and beliefs and we are all to some extent guilty of ignoring the odd bit here and there as this thread proves. Its the same fence mate, we are just on opposite sides of it. We went where we though the grass was greenest and there we sit looking accross the fence to grass neither of us see as green as our own. Funny old world innit.

Have you been at the mesopotamian yeast again Hillbill?

My reply which you have quoted is in reply to durulz post about 'bloody wikipedia'

To the very best of my knowledge I have not replied to any post regarding any bills of congress.

As far as presumption and assumption go, you would do well to google the difference. It would appear you have assumed the last paragraph of my reply to be in some way a response to your posts about this bill of congress to which you refer. However, the post of yours which I had in mind at the time of typing was to do with holographic projection onto clouds of chemicals released into the upper atmosphere the supporting evidence for which was removed from wikipedia not because of a global conspiracy to hide the truth but because it was false.

 

[HillBill]

Have you been at the mesopotamian yeast again Hillbill?

My reply which you have quoted is in reply to durulz post about 'bloody wikipedia'

To the very best of my knowledge I have not replied to any post regarding any bills of congress.

As far as presumption and assumption go, you would do well to google the difference. It would appear you have assumed the last paragraph of my reply to be in some way a response to your posts about this bill of congress to which you refer. However, the post of yours which I had in mind at the time of typing was to do with holographic projection onto clouds of chemicals released into the upper atmosphere the supporting evidence for which was removed from wikipedia not because of a global conspiracy to hide the truth but because it was false.

Had my name wrote on it mate. You said this

"One advantage of electronic media over paper, as HillBill recently discovered, is when complete cobblers is discovered masquerading as fact on Wikipedia "

The bill of congress backs some of what that wiki article said. Which is what i was referring to yet its utter cobblers according to you. Well, cobble me this, The bill states that chemtrails are real, chemtrails if you do a search contain 3 times the toxic amount of barium, barium which is used in holographic displays, holographic displays like the one in norway. I was involved in a thread on another forum about chemtrails 2 days before the event in norway, saying that there was a serious number of them in the skys that day. Then that happens? Coincidence then that barium was being heavily sprayed for the 2 days prior to the event. You want pics, i took plenty

 

[gregorach]

But as I attempted to explain to you, the specific manner in which strontium barium niobate is used in holographic displays is entirely incompatible with your alleged application. Also, the mere fact that a bill claims that something is real does not make it so - surely someone as sceptical of government as yourself should realise that?

 

[HillBill]

Standard normal contrails, this is vapour being dispelled from the engines, it dissapears not long behing the aircraft.

Theses are CHEMtrails. something sprayed from the aircraft that does not dissapear but expands forming horrible looking cloud type cover you can see the trails left by aircraft that flew over 2 to 3 hours previously.( the top pic is from the day before the others, the others are from the day prior to the events in norway.

and here for reference is a pic with both con and chem trails in it. This pic was taken about lunchtime, note the horrible looking cloud "type cover"

 

[HillBill]

But as I attempted to explain to you, the specific manner in which strontium barium niobate is used in holographic displays is entirely incompatible with your alleged application. Also, the mere fact that a bill claims that something is real does not make it so - surely someone as sceptical of government as yourself should realise that?

Aye, but from your point of view it is a credible source mate. And if it isnt then there is no such thing to you, including the sources you may provide.

 

[gregorach]

Aye, but from your point of view it is a credible source mate. And if it isnt then there is no such thing to you, including the sources you may provide.

What!? A proposed bill in Congress is absolutely not a credible source for empirical claims. For that, you go to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. That literature clearly describes the applications of strontium barium niobate in holography, and those applications are absolutely nothing like what you have claimed.

I wouldn't suddenly start believing in Bigfoot if someone introduced a Bill for its protection. Both Congress and Parliament are full of nutters.

 

[HillBill]

What!? A proposed bill in Congress is absolutely not a credible source for empirical claims. For that, you go to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. That literature clearly describes the applications of strontium barium niobate in holography, and those applications are absolutely nothing like what you have claimed.

I wouldn't suddenly start believing in Bigfoot if someone introduced a Bill for its protection. Both Congress and Parliament are full of nutters.

Slightly different mate. Like i said earlier, they dont try ban things that do not exist. The bill did not get passed which tells me that what they tried to ban, did not get banned and are still up there. You can argue the toss with that all you like, but do you not know that most science is government funded with the military getting first dibs on all new tech before the public sector ever hears about it? The govenments pay most scientists wages, look at climategate, proof that science is very susceptible to corruption. But as you follow science i cant expect you to take that into account now can i. THey take their wages and their orders mate. Science/religon run the same same heirachy same corruption same tosh.

The sumaian kings were scientists, did you know that? Did you know that sciences theorys of how the earth and moon came about are copied from sumer texts? Did you know science got its breakthroughs in DNA because of what they found on sumer temple walls? Bet you didnt but they did. You see the sumer kings knew more than we do now, there science was amazing. They are attempting to replicate some of it now by creating animal/human hybrids for stem cell research, as the sumer kings did though they did it for an entirely different purpose.

 

[HillBill]

Getting a bit off topic though.


It wasnt a missile ,

Just got word back from an old friend. Aye the russians fired a missile, but they do not know what the light was, there missile failed over an hour earlier,

 

[Siberianfury]

You see the problem is, you make a post all about how wonderfully well read you are, and how deep your education lies. You give forth on the skills of deduction and the time spent on dead languages, then either by haste or lack, you disprove it.

There is no real content to anything you post, your links are to sites that, at best are so badly flawed that only a devote believer, a zealot, would consider them trust worthy.
Give forth proper evidence and people may take your posts seriously.
Until then “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Et tu, Brute

To be honest, who gives a monkeys about spelling mistakes..... Nit picking other peoples posts can be very patronising and lower the mood of those concerned.

Now letts kepp thars convosaton on twak shal wee?

 

[gregorach]

There's absolutely no way I can even begin to unpack the sheer density of nonsense in there - every single thing is wrong, apart from the bits that aren't even wrong. I quit. Believe whatever you like.

 

[sapper1]

That sounds like "I can't form a reasoned argument against what you say so I'm going to sulk now".

 

[HillBill]

There's absolutely no way I can even begin to unpack the sheer density of nonsense in there - every single thing is wrong, apart from the bits that aren't even wrong. I quit. Believe whatever you like.

Typical reaction from someone who cant defend it. Look into the sumer kings mate. Look at the sumer story of how the earth and moon came about, then look at the sciece theory.

Climategate is something you would like to avoid aint it? Man made global warming? How are we making the other planets warm up simultaneously too? We must be good. Thing is, the mayans said this would happen thousands of years ago, they have a habit of being correct.
I'm not saying we are doing good for the planet, only that global warming isnt happening because of us. FACT

 

[Siberianfury]

There are too many things like this going on around us to worry about, Id perfer to get on with life untill somthing actualy happens....