"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:41:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:35:17 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:28:26 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:38:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last
word
in.
The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word
"damn".
And
not
even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn
weather
is
awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter
for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that
case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had
not
impeded
science.

Do you know who first formulated the Big Bang theory? Ever
here
of
Gregor Mendel? Blaise Pascal?

Quite a few scientists manage to have a foot in both
worlds.
In
general
the Catholics seem more flexible than the Protestants,
particularly
the
'gimme that old time religion' branch.

In the past the two were heavily tied together... but that
is
no
longer the
case. There are still some religious scientists, but
scientists
tend
to be
atheist at a higher level than the general public. They also
tend
to
be more
liberal, which makes sense given how at least in the US
conservatives
tend
to
reject our best evidence.

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to
deny
evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing
that
kills
4 times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world
population
growth.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is
no
global
warming.

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the
weak.

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it
can,
as
they're the weaker ones.

As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer?

And he is significantly medically ****ed.

But doesnt reproduce.

Exactly, I would only reproduce if I was fit, healthy, rich, and good
looking. Imagine the next generation if everyone did that.

Didnt work with Phil the Greek, look at the useless ****s he produced.

That is not good looking.

Most women would disagree with you about that.

********. You don't get actors looking that ugly.

More bull**** with all of Mel Gibson, Trevor Howard etc etc etc.

Unless they're playing bad guys.

And the wife has to be all those things too obviously.

Nope, it doesnt work like that. Liz's mum was never anything special.

If both are special, the kids will be special.

More mindless bull**** with Maggie Thatcher and Dennis.

If one is special, then the kids have a 50% chance.

More mindless bull****.

Set an example?

He does, but by streaking, quite literally.

How does that kill anyone?

That bit wasnt about killing anyone, although
in your case likely some died laughing or atleast
crashed the car or the motorbike etc.

Yes, a distraction at seeing my sexy body.

Laughing at your microdick, actually.

It's above the national average.

Bull**** it is, we have the videos of you streaking.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 05:40:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
TYPICAL retarded "conversation" between sociopath Rodent and sociopath
Birdbrain from August 26th 2018:

Birdbrain: "I have one head but 5 fingers."

Senile Rodent: "Obvious lie. You hairy legged cross dressers are so inbred
that you all have two heads."

Birdbrain: "You're the one that likes hairy legs remember?"

Senile Rodent: "The problem isnt the hairy legs, it's the gross inbreeding
that
produces two headed unemployables like you."

Birdbrain: "So why did you mention hairy legs?"

Senile Rodent: "Because that's what those who arent actually stupid enough
to shave their legs have."

Birdbrain: "You only have hairy legs if both of the following are true:
1) You're quite far back on the evolutionary scale.
2) You haven't learned what a razor is for."

Senile Rodent: "Only a terminal ****wit or a woman shaves their legs."

Birdbrain: "There is literally zero point in having hair all over your
body."

Senile Rodent: "There is even less point in wasting your time changing what
you are born with."

MID:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 22:28:10 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:49:39 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:43:52 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

Grossly overreacting was therefore a trait that needed removing
for
the
next generation.

Nope because it means they do much better with the
non pandemic infections and don't have to bother to
wash their hands all the time and can get away with
doing what is more convenient like not throwing
away food that has had a fly walk on it etc etc etc.

Having a trait that makes you better at 9 things but worse at another,
getting you killed, is not a good trait to have. Say you could do
calculations twice as fast, you could sing perfect pitch, you could do
1000
pushups, but the sight of a car made you spontaneously combust. That
would
not be a good thing to have. By your reasoning, you would be called
superior, and have a hired help to warn you of approaching cars.

You have no right to say who should not be saved.

You have no right to intervene in evolution and keep the worthless
alive.

It was actually the best who were kept alive with the spanish flu.

Well that would work better, I assume you're saying they protected who
they felt were more worthy.

Nope, they watched the best die very quickly often quite literally in hours
due
to the massive cytokine storm seen with those with the best immune systems.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:06:47 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 01:21:50 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 22:13:14 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:19:55 +0100, #Paul
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had not impeded science.

You've pre-loaded the statement; since it is reasonable to believe
that at least in some cases religion has impeded science, is is
only
natural to make the follow-on assumption that science would have
been
further advanced. Well, unless the impediment was somehow such that
it
slowed science so as to avoid some sort of science based global
catastrophe; perhaps a nuclear war at a time when people were less
averse to mass slaughter and less aware of the global consequences.

A more neutral question might be somthing along the lines of:

"You have to wonder whether religion has, overall, been a help
or hindrance to scientific advance."

A bit of both, in my opinion, and which is more dominant depends
a lot on how widely - or how far back - you cast your viewpoint.

Why are you concentrating on disasters?

He isnt.

I just mean that advances like satnav might have happened 20 years
earlier,

Don't buy that. Satellites had nothing to do with religion, it was
WW2 and the V2 and von Braun that produced that eventually.

and by now we could have been on mars.

Again, nothing to do with religion, that
was actually driven by the cold war.

Surely you must agree that people refusing to believe the earth goes
round
the sun for 100 years slowed down advances in physics?

No it didn't. The most it did was waste a lot of time trying
to explain what we saw with the movement of the planets.

Shutting up or even killing those who make discoveries simply has to
slow
down science.

Only that bit of science they were shut up or killed about and it didn't
really do that
either with that question of whether the sun revolves around the earth or
the reverse.

But you can't rotate the earth around heaven, that makes no sense to the
religious nuts.

And like we keep telling you, the professionally religious with lots
of spare time on their hands because they were parasites on society
were in fact responsible for lots of the really useful advances in real
science too. Most obviously with Mendel and Darwin.

I'm surprised Darwin wasn't burned at the stake.

You poms had stopped doing that more than a century before that.

They were still blowing brown people away from the guns in his time tho.

On Sat, 1 May 2021 05:50:04 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own ****?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the ****."

MID:

On Sat, 1 May 2021 05:53:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic idiots' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 07:35:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 24/04/2021 19:25, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 01:21:50 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 22:13:14 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:19:55 +0100, #Paul
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had not impeded science.

You've pre-loaded the statement; since it is reasonable to believe
that at least in some cases religion has impeded science, is is only
natural to make the follow-on assumption that science would have been
further advanced. Well, unless the impediment was somehow such
that it
slowed science so as to avoid some sort of science based global
catastrophe; perhaps a nuclear war at a time when people were less
averse to mass slaughter and less aware of the global consequences.

A more neutral question might be somthing along the lines of:

"You have to wonder whether religion has, overall, been a help
or hindrance to scientific advance."

A bit of both, in my opinion, and which is more dominant depends
a lot on how widely - or how far back - you cast your viewpoint.

Why are you concentrating on disasters?

He isnt.

I just mean that advances like satnav might have happened 20 years
earlier,

Don't buy that. Satellites had nothing to do with religion, it was
WW2 and the V2 and von Braun that produced that eventually.

and by now we could have been on mars.

Again, nothing to do with religion, that
was actually driven by the cold war.

Surely you must agree that people refusing to believe the earth goes
round
the sun for 100 years slowed down advances in physics?

No it didn't. The most it did was waste a lot of time trying
to explain what we saw with the movement of the planets.

Shutting up or even killing those who make discoveries simply has to
slow down science.

No discoveries are made in science.
Only ideas are suggested.

Heliocentrism is only a model. The church realised that, Galileo
insisted it was Real. He got punished for his arrogance.

Science is very much held back by the notion that a model in the mind is
a 'discovery' of a 'fact' in the 'One True World'.

This has reached peak idiocy with ClimateChange„¢ where models are now
held to be the real world altogether, and data is simply ignored or
adjusted to fit the models.

And the people doing the shutting up and the killing are in fact self
styled scientists.

Well said with the "climate change"

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:37:00 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No,

Fraid so.

we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

No we havent. Making useful vaccines has in
fact allowed us to evolve even smarter people,
most obviously with the spanish flu which killed
the best people very quickly indeed.

But allowed people to live who are susceptible to viruses. Making future generations need more vaccines.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:28:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/04/2021 19:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:52:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 at 19:25:48 BST, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:32:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 19:10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Surely you must agree that people refusing to believe the earth goes
round the sun for 100 years slowed down advances in physics?

Not as much as simple minded people believing that it does...

Please don't post after 5 joints.

The Sun and the Earth orbit around their common centre of mass.

If you're OCD, otherwise "around the sun" is near enough.
Well no, that not nearly near enough., they all in fact orbit round te C
of G of the galaxy...oh noes, and that's is orbiting around...the c of G
of the unknown universe,

Or if you 'believe Einstein' nothing is orbiting anything, just rolling
around curved tracks made by bent space.

Its a shame you are so thick. There is an amazing world out there. possibly.

You don't need 100% accuracy for everything you do. For most things in your house, you can use basic Newtonian mechanics for example.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:25:54 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:03:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:05:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind
"Snit" repetitively ****ted
the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

Tedious, isn't he?

What Rod Speed ran from:

More of you lies, that troll**** is what I flushed, repeatedly.

Snit is what's called a floater.

Which one of these ?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floater

Only 10 is used in Scotland. It means you've been unsuccessful in flushing your turd because it contained too much farts and floated. You have to weigh it down with many pieces of bogroll and flush again.

I was referring to 10 with snit, since you tried to flush him and he didn't.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:06:56 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:41:23 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:21:18 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:11:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:56:53 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:50 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last
word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word
"damn". And not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather
is
awful today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter
for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that
case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had
not impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

You have been shown evidence. Your acceptance or rejection of the
evidence
is
on you.

Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were
religious
means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people
would
still
have become scientists.

It was not just that they were religious, they were doing research
in the
name
of religion. Why do you think there is a Vatican Observatory? How
about the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences? And Islam-backed work,
getting
much from the Greeks, pushed a lot in the areas of mathematics,
optics,
astronomy, and medicine. Many early scientists saw studying the
world as a
form of studying their idea of a deity.

Yeah and when that science they were doing produces something against
the
bible it's immediately discounted.

In far too many cases, agreed.



But look at you, now, you reject both religion AND much of science.
Meanwhile
I am not religious but very much look to science.

I do not reject science.

You reject man-made global climate change and other well established
things
shown though peer review research.

I reject that it's made enough difference to need to give a damn.

I understand you reject the evidence. Not sure what else there is to say
about
that.

You mock others for their religious as being faith based but you have your
own
equally strong faith based views.

Bull****. He actually realises that climate has not changed enough to
matter.

Don't back me up again or I'll fall in love with you.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:48:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50:44 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:07:36 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:51:58 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn=E2=80=99t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact evidence
has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

A government website is the last place to go for facts.

Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate
change? if so please share.

Looking out of my window.

A simple "no" would have done. You have an unsupported intuition.

It was a yes. First hand information, supported by everyone else who has
looked out of their window, or had to clear snow off their car.

You have an intuition, contrary to the evidence, based on limited data.

I have enough evidence to verify that **** all has changed. Only a fool would spend billions researching something that is not apparent.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:48:15 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50:44 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:07:36 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:51:58 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn=E2=80=99t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact evidence
has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

A government website is the last place to go for facts.

Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global climate
change? if so please share.

Looking out of my window.

A simple "no" would have done. You have an unsupported intuition.

It was a yes. First hand information, supported by everyone else who has
looked out of their window, or had to clear snow off their car.

You have an intuition, contrary to the evidence, based on limited data.

I have enough evidence to verify that **** all has changed. Only a fool
would spend billions researching something that is not apparent.


Just as many religious people say they have personal experience of a god.
Except with that belief it is not actively denying peer reviewed research.
While there is no evidence of a god, belief in one does not lead you to
necessarily deny things like the evididence of man-made global climate
change.

Your religion is more harmful than the ones you mock.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:06:56 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:41:23 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:21:18 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:11:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:56:53 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:50 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last
word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word
"damn". And not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather
is
awful today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter
for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that
case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had
not impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

You have been shown evidence. Your acceptance or rejection of the
evidence
is
on you.

Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were
religious
means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people
would
still
have become scientists.

It was not just that they were religious, they were doing research
in the
name
of religion. Why do you think there is a Vatican Observatory? How
about the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences? And Islam-backed work,
getting
much from the Greeks, pushed a lot in the areas of mathematics,
optics,
astronomy, and medicine. Many early scientists saw studying the
world as a
form of studying their idea of a deity.

Yeah and when that science they were doing produces something against
the
bible it's immediately discounted.

In far too many cases, agreed.



But look at you, now, you reject both religion AND much of science.
Meanwhile
I am not religious but very much look to science.

I do not reject science.

You reject man-made global climate change and other well established
things
shown though peer review research.

I reject that it's made enough difference to need to give a damn.

I understand you reject the evidence. Not sure what else there is to say
about
that.

You mock others for their religious as being faith based but you have your
own
equally strong faith based views.

Bull****. He actually realises that climate has not changed enough to
matter.

Don't back me up again or I'll fall in love with you.


You fall in love with everyone.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:37:00 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No,

Fraid so.

we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

No we havent. Making useful vaccines has in
fact allowed us to evolve even smarter people,
most obviously with the spanish flu which killed
the best people very quickly indeed.

But allowed people to live who are susceptible to viruses. Making future
generations need more vaccines.


Are you falsely assuming if you are more susceptible to one virus you will
be to others?

If so this implies Windows computers are more susceptible to Mac viruses
than Macs are!

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:37:00 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more
it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No,

Fraid so.

we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

No we havent. Making useful vaccines has in
fact allowed us to evolve even smarter people,
most obviously with the spanish flu which killed
the best people very quickly indeed.

But allowed people to live who are susceptible to viruses.

No it didn't given that they didn't have a vaccine for the spanish flu.

Making future generations need more vaccines.

Nope.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:25:54 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:03:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:05:23 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind
"Snit" repetitively ****ted
the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

Tedious, isn't he?

What Rod Speed ran from:

More of you lies, that troll**** is what I flushed, repeatedly.

Snit is what's called a floater.

Which one of these ?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/floater

Only 10 is used in Scotland.

That's a lie with 1.

It means you've been unsuccessful in flushing your turd because it
contained too much farts and floated.

Nope, because it contained too much undigested vegy crap.

You have to weigh it down with many pieces of bogroll and flush again.

You arent weighing it down because bog roll floats too.
You are increasing the surface area so the flush has more
area to work out to get the turd round the bend.

I was referring to 10 with snit, since you tried to flush him and he
didn't.

I didn't try to flush him, just his troll****.

On Sat, 01 May 2021 18:46:35 GMT, **** the sick git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Don't back me up again or I'll fall in love with you.


You fall in love with everyone.

But it's YOU who keeps sucking HIM off, not the other way round, **** the
Git!

On Sat, 01 May 2021 18:46:36 GMT, **** the sick git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Are you falsely assuming if you are more susceptible to one virus you will
be to others?

HE only assumes that you will keep sucking him off as long as he keeps
baiting you, senile asshole! BG

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:06:56 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:41:23 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:21:18 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:11:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:56:53 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:50 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last
word in. The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word
"damn". And not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather
is
awful today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter
for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that
case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion
had
not impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

You have been shown evidence. Your acceptance or rejection of the
evidence
is
on you.

Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were
religious
means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people
would
still
have become scientists.

It was not just that they were religious, they were doing research
in the
name
of religion. Why do you think there is a Vatican Observatory? How
about the
Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences? And Islam-backed
work,
getting
much from the Greeks, pushed a lot in the areas of mathematics,
optics,
astronomy, and medicine. Many early scientists saw studying the
world as a
form of studying their idea of a deity.

Yeah and when that science they were doing produces something
against
the
bible it's immediately discounted.

In far too many cases, agreed.



But look at you, now, you reject both religion AND much of
science.
Meanwhile
I am not religious but very much look to science.

I do not reject science.

You reject man-made global climate change and other well established
things
shown though peer review research.

I reject that it's made enough difference to need to give a damn.

I understand you reject the evidence. Not sure what else there is to say
about
that.

You mock others for their religious as being faith based but you have
your
own
equally strong faith based views.

Bull****. He actually realises that climate has not changed enough to
matter.

Don't back me up again or I'll fall in love with you.

Not a problem, I have a poofter stopper.

On Sat, 01 May 2021 18:46:34 GMT, **** the sick git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Just as many religious people say they have personal experience of a god.
Except with that belief it is not actively denying peer reviewed research.
While there is no evidence of a god, belief in one does not lead you to
necessarily deny things like the evididence of man-made global climate
change.

Your religion is more harmful than the ones you mock.

Your continued sucking him off is more disgusting than his trolling, senile
sucker of troll cock!

"Snit" wrote in message
...
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:48:15 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50:44 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:07:36 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:51:58 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not
individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the
evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature
change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less
even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn=E2=80=99t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring
to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites.
OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested
in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact
evidence
has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global
climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

A government website is the last place to go for facts.

Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global
climate
change? if so please share.

Looking out of my window.

A simple "no" would have done. You have an unsupported intuition.

It was a yes. First hand information, supported by everyone else who
has
looked out of their window, or had to clear snow off their car.

You have an intuition, contrary to the evidence, based on limited data.

I have enough evidence to verify that **** all has changed. Only a fool
would spend billions researching something that is not apparent.


Just as many religious people say they have personal experience of a god.
Except with that belief it is not actively denying peer reviewed research.

Trouble with that "peer reviewed research" is that
it is peer reviewed by others of the MMCC cult.

While there is no evidence of a god, belief in one
does not lead you to necessarily deny things like the
evididence of man-made global climate change.

Easy to claim that there is evidence of man-made global climate change.

Your religion is more harmful than the ones you mock.

More mindless bull****.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 04:51:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID:

Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:48:15 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50:44 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:07:36 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:51:58 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not
individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the
evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature
change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less
even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn=E2=80=99t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring
to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites.
OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested
in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact
evidence
has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global
climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

A government website is the last place to go for facts.

Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global
climate
change? if so please share.

Looking out of my window.

A simple "no" would have done. You have an unsupported intuition.

It was a yes. First hand information, supported by everyone else who
has
looked out of their window, or had to clear snow off their car.

You have an intuition, contrary to the evidence, based on limited data.

I have enough evidence to verify that **** all has changed. Only a fool
would spend billions researching something that is not apparent.


Just as many religious people say they have personal experience of a god.
Except with that belief it is not actively denying peer reviewed research.

Trouble with that "peer reviewed research" is that
it is peer reviewed by others of the MMCC cult.

What do you even mean by this other than to say you reject evidence.

While there is no evidence of a god, belief in one
does not lead you to necessarily deny things like the
evididence of man-made global climate change.

Easy to claim that there is evidence of man-made global climate change.

And easy to show evidence you reject.

Your religion is more harmful than the ones you mock.

More mindless bull****.

If so you would have offered a reasoned refutation.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Sat, 01 May 2021 20:13:55 GMT, **** the sick git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


If so you would have offered a reasoned refutation.

Admit it, **** the Git, you simply love sucking off EVERY demented troll!
LOL

"Snit" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:48:15 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:50:44 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:07:36 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:51:58 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:02:12 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 20, 2021 at 11:20:45 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 05:23:56 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not
individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the
evidence
(if they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with
the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature
change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was
less
even as
the world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn=E2=80=99t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are
referring
to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific
sites.
OK. That
is
what I figured.

You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not
interested
in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact
evidence
has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made
global
climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

A government website is the last place to go for facts.

Do you have a more reputable site to get info on man-made global
climate
change? if so please share.

Looking out of my window.

A simple "no" would have done. You have an unsupported intuition.

It was a yes. First hand information, supported by everyone else who
has
looked out of their window, or had to clear snow off their car.

You have an intuition, contrary to the evidence, based on limited
data.

I have enough evidence to verify that **** all has changed. Only a
fool
would spend billions researching something that is not apparent.


Just as many religious people say they have personal experience of a
god.
Except with that belief it is not actively denying peer reviewed
research.

Trouble with that "peer reviewed research" is that
it is peer reviewed by others of the MMCC cult.

What do you even mean by this other than to say you reject evidence.

I dont reject evidence. I do realise that peer reviewed means
nothing when the peer reviewers are others of the MMCC cult.

While there is no evidence of a god, belief in one
does not lead you to necessarily deny things like the
evididence of man-made global climate change.

Easy to claim that there is evidence of man-made global climate change.

And easy to show evidence you reject.

I dont reject evidence.

Your religion is more harmful than the ones you mock.

More mindless bull****.

If so you would have offered a reasoned refutation.

More mindless bull****. Its obvious the massive damage that
religions have done over time with religious wars alone, ****wit.

Not a shred of evidence that MMGCC has produced anything
even remotely like that immense pile of corpses.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 07:01:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


More mindless bull****.

Yeah, senile Rodent, show the senile asshole what it gets for feeding a
senile asshole like you! LOL

On 01/05/2021 19:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:28:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/04/2021 19:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:52:41 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 at 19:25:48 BST, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:32:42 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Â*On 21/04/2021 19:10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Â*Surely you must agree that people refusing to believe the earth
goes
Â*round the sun for 100 years slowed down advances in physics?

Â*Not as much as simple minded people believing that it does...

Please don't post after 5 joints.

The Sun and the Earth orbit around their common centre of mass.

If you're OCD, otherwise "around the sun" is near enough.
Well no, that not nearly near enough., they all in fact orbit round te C
of G of the galaxy...oh noes, and that's is orbiting around...the c of G
of the unknown universe,

Or if you 'believe Einstein' nothing is orbiting anything, just rolling
around curved tracks made by bent space.

Its a shame you are so thick. There is an amazing world out there.
possibly.

You don't need 100% accuracy for everything you do.Â* For most things in
your house, you can use basic Newtonian mechanics for example.

Its not a question of accuracy.


'what you use', and 'what is true' may bear no relationship to one another.

This is the Great Mistake of the Realists. Because the picture of the
world that Science draws *works*, the Realists hold that it is 'strong
evidence' that it is *true*'. And burble on about 'Scientific Truths'.
But Einstein proved conclusively that because Newtonian Mechanics
*worked*, didn't make it in the least bit *true*. His picture of the
world was completely different, and worked marginally better.

At this point intelligent scientists realised that what the philosophers
had been saying all along was in fact more true than their theories -
Kant, Schopenhauer, Hume, Popper - science doesn't 'discover truth' - it
'invents theories', and tests them to see if they *work*.

Sadly intelligent scientists are less than one in a thousand. Most
scientists are still Realists.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 09:30:57 +0100, The Natural Idiot, another troll-feeding
senile asshole, blathered:


Its not a question of accuracy.

Right, it's a question of not feeding the troll, troll-feeding senile
ASSHOLE!

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:52:51 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:41:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:


...
Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny
evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that
kills 4
times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

The idea that over half a million dead in America, and many more than that
around the world, and that is WITH some fairly significant precautions,
is a
"small thing" is an utter rejection of the facts.

It's 4 times smaller than cancer and 40 times smaller then the population
growth. Those are numbers, irrefutable numbers.

In the US it is the third leading cause of death. And that is with some
precautions. Your lack of compassion does not reduce the harm.

It's FOUR TIMES LESS. So 100 people die, but only 20 of them were
coronavirus. And that's assuming nobody died of anything other than the
virus or cancer.

It is still the third leading cause of death. Maybe even higher now.

So not the most important one to deal with. It's like putting out a candle in the hall when your entire kitchen is on fire.

Again, your lack of compassion is on you... a "bad trait" if you will.

And those without compassion are bad for society... so by your own standards
should you not be weeded out?

I'm not telling people to live "dangerously", I'm telling them not to insist that I don't.

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global
warming.

Denial of the fact from you. That is what I mean.

I can see the temperature with my own eyes! It's on the thermometer over
there!

You use a local temperature to try to deny evidence of man-made global
climate
change. Your logic is flawed.

So magically my part of the world stays the same and the rest goes up?
Right.... Look, just move to the place that's the temperature you like, if
you're fussy enough to care about the alleged 2C change.

Selection bias

Stop using silly psychological labels you've read somewhere.

is not a good way to look at climate. I say go with the
evidence.

I have plenty evidence right here, the weather outside my house is what it always has been.

And moving does not reduce man-made global climate change, nor its harm.

Of course it does. If it becomes too hot to grow crops where you live, move further north, or grow more appropriate crops. The UK will be able to grow oranges. Russia will become a huge farmland instead of frozen wastes.

http://climate.nasa.gov

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to want,
there
are known methods to do it. At least in American the Republican party (the
more conservative of the two) rejects every one of these things. There
"solution" is to deny women equal rights.

The whole idea that an abortion is wrong is insanity. The child belongs to
the mother, and nobody else.

The Republican party pretends to be against abortion but then refused to do
anything to help reduce the numbers. The Democrats want it to be legal but
want to keep it rare.

Reducing the numbers can only mean you're taking away the right of choice
from the woman. I thought you liked human rights? The government should not
intervene.

I say increase the choice. Many who get an abortion would not have needed one
if they had more choices -- this is based on the evidence of better education,
free birth control, more access to Planned Parenthood and the like, etc.

It's not rocket science to use a condom. You don't need education for something that simple. Even if you forget/were drunk, there's a morning after pill.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No, we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

Evolution has no plan. It is not forward "thinking" -- it does not think at
all.

It doesn't have to. It works by simply deleting the failures. But society is allowing those failures to breed, producing more failures.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:29 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:00:20 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:44:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:34:32 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word
in.
The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn".
And
not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is
awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had
not
impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

Its true anyway.

Religion did not help science.

Yes it did, if only because a lot of the professionally religious
had a lot time on their hands that allowed them to do science.

Just because some scientists were religious means nothing.

In earlier times it was in fact almost all of them.

If there had been no religion, those same people would still have
become
scientists.

Nope, they wouldn't have been in religious institutions with
a lot of time on their hands as parasites on the community.

Mendel would have had to get off his lard arse and earn a living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor...ife_and_career

Inventing things is a living.

He would have got the same food and accommodation
if he had just grovelled to some god or other instead
of doing something useful.

Einstein managed to earn money as a patent clerk, and invent ****.

He didn't actually invent anything much when he was a patent
clerk

Didn't have to, that earned him enough money to go invent later.

That utterly mangles what actually happened.
He didn't save up what the patent office payed
him and did the inventing with that money.

Of course he did, he was a tight Jew.

and was stupid enough to believe in some god too.

I doubt his religion played any part in creating his theories.

It did actually. He ran that stupid line 'god does not play dice with the
universe'

If god had wished us to know about the universe would he not have told us?

Pity about radioactive decay alone.

Randomness is simply lack of detailed knowledge. Take flipping a coin. If you know enough about how hard you spin it etc, you can work out what side it will land on.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:51:01 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:54:59 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:03:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:05:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind
"Snit" repetitively ****ted
the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

Tedious, isn't he?

What Rod Speed ran from:

More of you lies, that troll**** is what I flushed, repeatedly.

Snit is what's called a floater.

I do tend to have multiple social groups.

That's your left wing never stop talking problem.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:53:50 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 27, 2021 at 10:53:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:37:00 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 24, 2021 at 11:30:05 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:01:42 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 3:16:17 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

I wonder why nobody ever says just "It's". For example:
John: "That engine's not running right."
Steve: "It's."

Language is weird. Heck, how do you think people generally pronounce
the word
"can't".

Without the t. So it sounds more like "can".
https://youtu.be/6bszZZlvj4E

You bugger. Bet I will focus on that
bloody word every time its used now.

Just watched the first ep of the Manson tapes and didn=E2=80=99t.

Corse that might just be because it is so ****ing bizarre.

I have caught it in some speech I hear.

Have a friend who insists it just cannot be true. I talk to her on Zoom --
she
has agreed to let me record her without her knowing (at the time) and then
see
how SHE sounds). She insists she ALWAYS pronounced the T. Will be
interesting
to find out.

Yanks can't even pronounce herb with the H.

We can if it is a name.

By the way, I did look for UK specific examples of "can't". Here is what I
found:

https://youtu.be/dGnBi6giZw0

Those are examples from the UK. "Can't" is still pronounced as "can" (in
many
cases).

I listened to the first guy and he clearly said carnt. Check your ears.

There is a slight r. Common in British English?

It's not slight. It's the same as saying tarnished. Would you mishear that as tannished?

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:39:50 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:36:08 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:40:27 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 9:38:36 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-23 9:22 a.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 23, 2021 at 9:20:42 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-23 9:13 a.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 23, 2021 at 8:38:27 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-22 8:19 p.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 22, 2021 at 8:08:16 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

you're an organ grinder

Only to those who really deserve it, and then I outsource the work.

do you have a coin snatching monkey

That's what she said.

its what you should've asked her

We asked each other.

that's very emotional

It was touching.

What was it touching?

No comment.

See when people say spanking the monkey, I think you took it too literally. Are you sure the monkey consented?

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 19:22:29 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:00:20 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:44:53 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:34:32 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

Another account must be made so they don't get the last
word
in.
The
silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word
"damn".
And
not even
in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather
is
awful
today".
Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter
for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that
case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had
not
impeded
science.

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it.

Its true anyway.

Religion did not help science.

Yes it did, if only because a lot of the professionally religious
had a lot time on their hands that allowed them to do science.

Just because some scientists were religious means nothing.

In earlier times it was in fact almost all of them.

If there had been no religion, those same people would still have
become
scientists.

Nope, they wouldn't have been in religious institutions with
a lot of time on their hands as parasites on the community.

Mendel would have had to get off his lard arse and earn a living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor...ife_and_career

Inventing things is a living.

He would have got the same food and accommodation
if he had just grovelled to some god or other instead
of doing something useful.

Einstein managed to earn money as a patent clerk, and invent ****.

He didn't actually invent anything much when he was a patent
clerk

Didn't have to, that earned him enough money to go invent later.

That utterly mangles what actually happened.
He didn't save up what the patent office payed
him and did the inventing with that money.

Of course he did, he was a tight Jew.

and was stupid enough to believe in some god too.

I doubt his religion played any part in creating his theories.

It did actually. He ran that stupid line 'god does not play dice with the
universe'

If god had wished us to know about the universe would he not have told us?

Unlikely that some arsehole who just yawned when 6M of its alleged
chosen people were gassed and cremated by Adolf and his henchmen.
Presumably he chose to lie to them about being chosen people and
was ****ing himself and laughing as they got gassed etc.

Pity about radioactive decay alone.

Randomness is simply lack of detailed knowledge. Take flipping a coin.
If you know enough about how hard you spin it etc, you can work out what
side it will land on.

Doesn't work with radioactive decay.

On Mon, 3 May 2021 04:14:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather

--
Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rodent Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rodent: "Then **** the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try ****ing them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try ****ing them. Try it and see."

Message-ID:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:39:50 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:36:08 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:40:27 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 23, 2021 at 9:38:36 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-23 9:22 a.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 23, 2021 at 9:20:42 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-23 9:13 a.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 23, 2021 at 8:38:27 AM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-04-22 8:19 p.m., Snit wrote:
On Apr 22, 2021 at 8:08:16 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

you're an organ grinder

Only to those who really deserve it, and then I outsource the work.

do you have a coin snatching monkey

That's what she said.

its what you should've asked her

We asked each other.

that's very emotional

It was touching.

What was it touching?

No comment.

See when people say spanking the monkey, I think you took it too
literally. Are you sure the monkey consented?


I have it in writing.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 20:53:50 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 27, 2021 at 10:53:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 20:37:00 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 24, 2021 at 11:30:05 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:01:42 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 3:16:17 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

I wonder why nobody ever says just "It's". For example:
John: "That engine's not running right."
Steve: "It's."

Language is weird. Heck, how do you think people generally pronounce
the word
"can't".

Without the t. So it sounds more like "can".
https://youtu.be/6bszZZlvj4E

You bugger. Bet I will focus on that
bloody word every time its used now.

Just watched the first ep of the Manson tapes and didn=E2=80=99t.

Corse that might just be because it is so ****ing bizarre.

I have caught it in some speech I hear.

Have a friend who insists it just cannot be true. I talk to her on Zoom --
she
has agreed to let me record her without her knowing (at the time) and then
see
how SHE sounds). She insists she ALWAYS pronounced the T. Will be
interesting
to find out.

Yanks can't even pronounce herb with the H.

We can if it is a name.

By the way, I did look for UK specific examples of "can't". Here is what I
found:

https://youtu.be/dGnBi6giZw0

Those are examples from the UK. "Can't" is still pronounced as "can" (in
many
cases).

I listened to the first guy and he clearly said carnt. Check your ears.

There is a slight r. Common in British English?

It's not slight. It's the same as saying tarnished. Would you mishear that as tannished?


Im still focused on the lack of a real T in cant.

Just weird.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 02:51:01 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 26, 2021 at 10:54:59 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:03:53 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 2021 at 10:54:38 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 06:05:23 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

Some gutless ****wit troll desperately cowering behind
"Snit" repetitively ****ted
the same mindless troll**** and lies as it always does when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, as it always is.

Tedious, isn't he?

What Rod Speed ran from:

More of you lies, that troll**** is what I flushed, repeatedly.

Snit is what's called a floater.

I do tend to have multiple social groups.

That's your left wing never stop talking problem.


I miss Trumps silent ways.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:52:51 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:41:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 21, 2021 at 11:13:56 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 23:50:26 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 17, 2021 at 10:28:03 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:


...
Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny
evidence.
We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that
kills 4
times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

The idea that over half a million dead in America, and many more than that
around the world, and that is WITH some fairly significant precautions,
is a
"small thing" is an utter rejection of the facts.

It's 4 times smaller than cancer and 40 times smaller then the population
growth. Those are numbers, irrefutable numbers.

In the US it is the third leading cause of death. And that is with some
precautions. Your lack of compassion does not reduce the harm.

It's FOUR TIMES LESS. So 100 people die, but only 20 of them were
coronavirus. And that's assuming nobody died of anything other than the
virus or cancer.

It is still the third leading cause of death. Maybe even higher now.

So not the most important one to deal with. It's like putting out a
candle in the hall when your entire kitchen is on fire.

It is the most preventable of the three €” and still at third WITH lots of
precautions.

Again, your lack of compassion is on you... a "bad trait" if you will.

And those without compassion are bad for society... so by your own standards
should you not be weeded out?

I'm not telling people to live "dangerously", I'm telling them not to insist that I don't.

And insisting on a special entitlement to risk their lives €” showing a lack
of compassion on your part.

As a society, based on your comments, why not weed you out to make the
whole society stronger?

man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global
warming.

Denial of the fact from you. That is what I mean.

I can see the temperature with my own eyes! It's on the thermometer over
there!

You use a local temperature to try to deny evidence of man-made global
climate
change. Your logic is flawed.

So magically my part of the world stays the same and the rest goes up?
Right.... Look, just move to the place that's the temperature you like, if
you're fussy enough to care about the alleged 2C change.

Selection bias

Stop using silly psychological labels you've read somewhere.

Do you even know what it is you are being called out on?

is not a good way to look at climate. I say go with the
evidence.

I have plenty evidence right here, the weather outside my house is what it always has been.

Likely untrue but also not relevant.

And moving does not reduce man-made global climate change, nor its harm.

Of course it does. If it becomes too hot to grow crops where you live,
move further north, or grow more appropriate crops. The UK will be able
to grow oranges. Russia will become a huge farmland instead of frozen wastes.

Food supplies will be harmed €” more than they are now.

http://climate.nasa.gov

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

If you want to reduce abortions, which most conservatives claim to want,
there
are known methods to do it. At least in American the Republican party (the
more conservative of the two) rejects every one of these things. There
"solution" is to deny women equal rights.

The whole idea that an abortion is wrong is insanity. The child belongs to
the mother, and nobody else.

The Republican party pretends to be against abortion but then refused to do
anything to help reduce the numbers. The Democrats want it to be legal but
want to keep it rare.

Reducing the numbers can only mean you're taking away the right of choice
from the woman. I thought you liked human rights? The government should not
intervene.

I say increase the choice. Many who get an abortion would not have needed one
if they had more choices -- this is based on the evidence of better education,
free birth control, more access to Planned Parenthood and the like, etc.

It's not rocket science to use a condom. You don't need education for
something that simple. Even if you forget/were drunk, there's a morning after pill.

Evidence shows education works.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

Evolution IS taking place. And the more the virus spreads the more it
mutates
/ evolves.

I was obviously talking about the evolution of humans to fight it off.
Think
about Eskimos and the cold virus.

And we as a species have evolved the ability to make vaccines.

No, we've invented the ability to screw up our future evolution.

Evolution has no plan. It is not forward "thinking" -- it does not think at
all.

It doesn't have to. It works by simply deleting the failures. But
society is allowing those failures to breed, producing more failures.


People have not stopped you from breeding. True enough. Are you suggesting
you should have been sterilized?


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.