The Glade 4.0

LOL

I can't beleive you actually said that. For something to be evidence, the thing it's supposed to be evidence for has to already have been shown to be correct? Is that actually what you mean?

By that logic there can't be evidence of a crime until a person has already been convicted.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Nope. Just when people deviate from the conversation (usually intentionally) to sidetrack it into an irrelevant discussion of semantics. It's especially silly when both sides of the semantics argument agree on the original point.



First, personal attacks are never warranted in intelligent conversation. So, try again. Second, there's nothing passive aggressive about my point in this thread, which is, as I will sum up for ya:

The investigation is ongoing, nobody here has enough information to make a judgement.

There's no insults or passive aggressiveness about that... at all. So, try again.



Proven wrong? Ok, tough guy - prove my point wrong. Do you have enough information to make a judgement on BP?



Super genius - wait, I thought I was retarded? LMAO You don't need to be a super genius to be able to understand that the investigation is ongoing.



Wrong.



Based on your own definition, testimony is evidence. Care to explain your discrepancy here?



Hey, he's getting it!!!



Woah there, strawman - I'm saying evidence, not facts. Try working in some of that reading comprehension you like to talk about.



This sounds like a nonsensical semantics argument man - I'm losing interest! Don't care man, and sorry if this makes you cry.





Nice prediction! Stop making unimportant, irrelevant arguments, and I'll stop saying it.



Expert testimony is not hearsay - come on, man - definitions are important!!!! (there you go, now you can stop the waterworks.)



No, it's not. Hearing the opinions of experts is necessary for non-experts to gain enough insight to make an informed decision. I know some people don't like hearing opposing viewpoints, but it's kind of necessary in cases such as this, since congress critters aren't oil experts.

Now, hopefully you've had enough of a tantrum to have gotten it out of your system and can calm down a bit? Don't blow your load all at once, we've only made it 1 page. We still have 5 more to go to make my goal.

We can do it!!

It's what he means, but I don't think he's really thought it through.

Arathain, what do you think of the proposal to stop it by setting off a nuclear explosion?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If he was an "Engineering Super Genius", he wouldn't work for the government.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

LMAO, I haven't heard that one yet. Please tell me that's a joke.

I don't. Never have. Nice try though. Man, you guys like to get personal on this board.

Not a joke at all. I've seen it in the paper twice now, and apparently the Russians did it years ago several times with leaks on land.

I didn't see any references to yield though, and I have no idea how you'd go about getting the device down there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Pot, meet Kettle.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well, it sounds like it could work, but... it seems like it would be very difficult to predict how the substrate would react. Seems there is potential to blow a much more serious hole than we already have.

Using nukes is not a plan. Using nukes is what you do when a plan fails.

You are making one hell of a contribution to this discussion. Bravo! /applaud

Indeed. I should hope this strategem, if employed, doesn't trigger "one flies, they all fly."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hmm, the nuke didn't work... now we've still got Oil spilling into the gulf... cept now its radioactive oil.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Yes, but the gamma radiation bomb made it super-powered radioactive oil, which took the form of a spider, bit Bubba Gump and turned him into a shrimp monster, watch for new specials down at his cook shack.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

You wouldn't really get that much radioactive oil.. on the other hand if it didn't work you'd most likely have it spilling a lot faster and no pipe to cap.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

But on the positive side, we'd know not to do that next time.

And knowing is half the battle.

No, that isn't what I mean.

What I mean is that until something is placed in the formal investigation or presented to the court as evidence and accepted it isn't evidence. Until then it is simply "alleged" or "mere speculation."

As an example (as a hypothetical), let's say you shoot somebody on duty, in what is later determined to be a justified shooting. At first it doesn't seem justified though, so the victim's family/estate/whathaveyou brings civil charges. In court, they try to present some sort of evidence that would make you look guilty. The judge disallows it. Therefore, what they were trying to present is not evidence. Until that point though, it was in the defendant's plan, it was an "alleged fact."

Arathain is running around making claims in his ignorance about various items and calling them evidence, none of which have been determined to be correct either by investigators or by a court. Therefore, they are not truly "evidence" at this point. It's an incredibly fine line to draw, I understand that. But its also a critical one.




@ Arathain:
Not sure what tears you imagine me to have, but if I shed any they are only for your stupidity, and for the sake of people using anything you happened to engineer.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Very critical. Insanely critical. Dude, really? My point stands under either definition you'd like to use. That means it is NOT critical, but indeed UNIMPORTANT to the discussion.



My stupidty for not being interested in hashing out for pages and pages your "incredibly fine line to draw" on a message board? Not sharing your viewpoint on what is "critical" does not make me stupid, man.

I find it telling how quickly you jump into personal discussions when challenged or disagreed with on this board. As an example, WTF does any of this have to do with the use of "anything I happened to engineer"? The quick jump to insulting people's intelligence and personal attacks tells me you're getting emotional - hence the remark about tears. If you're this heavily invested in a message board, perhaps it might be good for you to step away for a bit. Just my advice, for what it's worth.

Here's a question for the semantic debate: earlier, Arathain, you indicated by quoting the dictionary definition that evidence is "testimony", and thus you were right.

Well, the dictionary definition lists the primary definition of testimony as statements given under oath, which have not yet been made. So, DFK! is right, because these statements aren't considered evidence until they've been made in the court of law or before a grand jury.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Whether that's true or not, it does not change the validity of my (on topic) point. Thus, the distinction is "unimportant to the discussion" and not deserving of a several page derail, and much less so of personal attacks.

That said, I thought most testimony before Congress was made under oath?

It is important to the discussion because you are, either through your blatant and at this point willful ignorance or your stupidity (by being unable to see the distinction in terms), coloring the view of what happened. You are biasing the audience. This is malicious, given the fact that it has been pointed out to you. Your desire to hand-wave it away as "unimportant" doesn't change the fact of what you're doing.

The personal attacks are fully deserved for this malicious or stupid action, and for putting out sideways insults at anyone who disagrees with you. I mention the fact that you're an engineer because you're trying to imply that because you deal with engineering matters regularly, the rest of us are stupid and wrong.

Furthermore, the idea that I should take some sort of "break" because you and your post is simply laughable hubris. Kind of like how your engineering background makes your point unassailable. Also hubris.

The only thing I take issue with here is your attitude, and deliberate unwillingness to realize you're introducing bias into the situation.



Sometimes.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I don't see that it's critical in this case because as far as I can tell, Arathain is not talking about evidence in the legal sense but evidene in the general sense of establishing facts. If we were talking exclusively about criminality, yes, that would be totally correct, and to the degree that we are talking about criminality, that's correct.

I would also take some issue with your example because just because a judge excludes something does not necessarily mean its not evidence; it means its inadmissible. In some cases, it's not evidence of anything relevant, but it is predjudicial (maybe that's what you meant in your example). If, on the other hand, the evidence is ruled inadmissible because it has been obtained illegally (lets say that in this case the family suing me had hacked my email) that doesn't mean it's not evidence. What the court is saying is that, regardless of its vaule, it is inadmissible as a remedy for the "violence" (not actual physical violence) done to the system of due process by obtaining it in an illegal fashion. That's a bit of a nitpick but since we're talking about subtle but important distinctions....

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are incorrect again, and your unwillingness to pay attention to what is written is not impressing me. Saying that "nobody knows the facts, we need to wait until the investigation is complete" is not biasing the audience. In fact, I'm arguing against the bias I feel Khross is experiencing. HE is coming to a conclusion (hokum) without all the facts. I am saying we cannot come to a conclusion yet. That is the opposite of biasing the audience, man. Nice try, though.

And no, once again, it's not important. If a discussion over semantics has no potential to change the point, then it's pretty safe to say it's not important to the point.



Quite the opposite, and your inability or unwillingness to read my statements is showing again. I'm not insulting anyone who disagrees with me, I'm explaining why they are incorrect.

And no, personal attacks are never justified on a message board for two reasons. First, you don't know me personally, and therefore making personal judgements without the appropriate data just makes you look silly. Second, it's a discussion board, for topic discussion. If you can't discuss a topic without getting all emotional, or defend a position without trying to bully your debate opponent, then you're in the wrong place. When I see a personal attack, I can only assume they feel like they have no logical argument left to make.



Engineering background does not make my point unassaible (which was never claimed - please read people's posts more carefully before you waste their time). My point is unassailable on its own. Data is still being collected, so how can conclusions be drawn yet? Engineering experience has nothing to do with it.



All viewpoints are biased, but that said - I'm trying to argue against bias, which you would have seen had you had actually read my posts. As to my attitude - my attitude is that your persistent derails into unimportant semantics tirades is a waste of everyone's time. If you would like my attitude on this to change, please stop wasting everyone's time. Or, at least, mine.

"Semantics tirades?" I'm sorry, I find the meaning of words and the usage of language important. I suppose you don't. That's fine, it just makes you ignorant.



Feel free to not read what I write when I attempt to correct your blatant misuse of language. I mean, you already ignore those corrections in a desire to prove people wrong on the internet, so you might as well just skip them in the first place.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue to point out misuse of language.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine