Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #176 Share Posted April 19, 2013 All these icons and emoticons and even italics seem to be unavailable to me. The "More Reply Options" has check boxes for "enable emoticons?" and so on, but they don't do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #177 Share Posted April 19, 2013 There are things in modern science that some people just don't seem to be able to get. An example is the illusionary nature of sensations and emotions. There are also fallacies that seem to persist no matter how strong the case against them, such as the illusion of causation that leads creationists to persist with the antique first cause arguments, the idea that there exists such a thing as "laws of physics," that the appearance of design implies a designer, that large numbers of reports of a phenomenon from the general public implies that the phenomenon is real at least some of the time, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted April 19, 2013 #178 Share Posted April 19, 2013 All these icons and emoticons and even italics seem to be unavailable to me. The "More Reply Options" has check boxes for "enable emoticons?" and so on, but they don't do anything. there is a Help and Support forum if the problem continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #179 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Ask and ye shall receive. LINK - Finally, sarcasm has a voice in print with its own font Sarcasm falls flat on its face if you have to label it as such. If people don't recognize the sarcasm, then it's too subtle for them. This may be the author's fault but more likely its the denseness of the reader -- I know I miss stuff of this sort all the time because my English "feel" sometimes fails me, but I know native English speakers can sometimes be dense too. Clever choices of words always carry that risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #180 Share Posted April 19, 2013 there is a Help and Support forum if the problem continues... I've learned to do italics the bruteforce way, but other than that I don't much care; I tend to want to understate as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted April 19, 2013 #181 Share Posted April 19, 2013 All these icons and emoticons and even italics seem to be unavailable to me. The "More Reply Options" has check boxes for "enable emoticons?" and so on, but they don't do anything. Maybe you've got the 'toggle editing mode' switch set to off? At the top left hand corner of the reply box, (next to that red and white thing that looks like a pill) there's a little thing like a switch. Try clicking on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #182 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I should do as Bee says and start a theme in the proper place. I take it the "reply box" is the box labeled "Reply to this topic" which then has my little fish below it and an empty box for typing. There is nothing else. In the lower right there are two boxes, one for "post" (defaulted) and one for "More Reply Options" where I go to attach files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted April 19, 2013 #183 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I should do as Bee says and start a theme in the proper place. I take it the "reply box" is the box labeled "Reply to this topic" which then has my little fish below it and an empty box for typing. There is nothing else. In the lower right there are two boxes, one for "post" (defaulted) and one for "More Reply Options" where I go to attach files. You can use the Quote button as well, but it does the same thing. Above the reply box there's two rows of icons; if you check the one at the top left, just above the row with Bold and Italic and so on, there's somethign called 'Toggle editing mode'. if it's turned off, all the icons are faint. If you turn it on, they become bold. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #184 Share Posted April 19, 2013 You can use the Quote button as well, but it does the same thing. Above the reply box there's two rows of icons; if you check the one at the top left, just above the row with Bold and Italic and so on, there's somethign called 'Toggle editing mode'. if it's turned off, all the icons are faint. If you turn it on, they become bold. As you can see I used the quote button. Above the reply box there is a row that allows me to go to PREV but no other stuff like you describe. I appreciate all this, but I've lived with this situation so long its ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted April 19, 2013 #185 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) If you are going to paraphrase what I have said, try and do it correctly...or it makes you look, ........ lazy... No, I'm basically describing you and others like you. As long as you can proclaim that science hides the truth from us, you have no reason to expend the energy required to learn exactly how it is that you are wrong. This tends to propagate ignorance. Harte Edited April 19, 2013 by Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conspiracy buff Posted April 19, 2013 #186 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) How does the saying go? "Those who believe don't need any proof and for skeptics, no proof will do". Jim Marrs sums it up perfectly in his book "Alien Agenda" when he says that it is a "clashing of mindsets". You either believe there is active life out there and that there is a cover up, or you simply ignore all the circumstantial evidence that would strong imply so. I'm all for scientific proof of aliens and these authors having knowledge about that which they write about. That part I believe is just great imagination and coincidence. These people had to sell books and did so by imagining great things. Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells are great examples of this. However, when talking about the Mars topic, there have been a lot of omitted evidence covered up by NASA and other institutions that would know about these realities. Just look at their photos of Mars[and even other planets] and how they are edited and cut. Why would these photos need to be edited? Is there something there they don't want the public to know? Even the most hardened skeptic would have to admit there seems to be logic behind changing pictures and lying about what the official story is versus what may actually be out there. What those motives behind the logic are remains a question to which it is up to each individual to decide. It does seem like more and more these types of things are swept under the rug so to speak and we are expected to ignore them. Edited April 19, 2013 by conspiracy buff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 19, 2013 #187 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Scientific revolutions tend to happen like that. First you have the established view, with the overwhelming evidence behind it and universal scholarly acceptance. Then data or observations or maybe just thought experiments begin to raise doubts, followed by maybe some major upsetting discovery. At first the problems are rationalized, then they are looked at again, and authorities say things like, "Why didn't we see that." What is a layperson to do? As often as not the rationalizations of the misfitting data turn out to be what is right, and the prevailing theory remains in place. Other times the change happens. As non-experts we are in no place to second-guess those who have spent their lives on the topic. People don't like accepting authority. They want to make up their own minds. Much of this is arrogance, but of course a suspicion of academic inbreeding can't be avoided. Butting ones head against the authority of the established experts is a waste of time. If you are right, you won't get any more credit than maybe an acknowledgment that you accidentally had it, and the probability is that you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted April 19, 2013 #188 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Didnt a lot of people refute Einsteins theory's at first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted April 20, 2013 #189 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Type #1 Respected, evidenced, brilliant Type #2 - the nutters who steal credibility from the guys above Zechariah, we can see your hand buddy. Keep it out from under that skirt. Type 3 Because I like Bee`s statement "when a pronstar starts using emotive words like peddled snake oil & gullilble" Now thats a Gem ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterFlint Posted April 20, 2013 Author #190 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Saw this story today.... Maybe some day soon we'll get some settlers on Mars and we'll all know what Burroughs knew or didn't know.... If the settlers send word back that they can jump 100 feet into the air and have all found beautiful red skinned Princess's we'll all know that the books were completely true!!! hahaha! Also, read more of the second book, turns out the black pirates of barsoom are actually from inside the hollowed out mars and not from one of their moons, so they aren't from phobo's, dang it! lol. On a side note, I thought it was cool that in this internet article that it does say that mars has "a thin atmosphere." So it's not a vacuum world... That opens up the possibility of a real settlement one day if there is any type of atmosphere that might be able to store oxygen on the planet if it's produced, that's pretty cool. http://www.infowars.com/applicants-wanted-for-a-one-way-ticket-to-mars/ FYI, you gotta click on reading the full article to get the whole story and part about their being a thin atmosphere on mars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted April 20, 2013 #191 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Didnt a lot of people refute Einsteins theory's at first? Regarding General Relativity, there was a slew of mathematicians growing more and more impatient with Einstein, waiting for him to finish his solution (which they had already done, while waiting.) One of them publicly announced that if Einstein didn't get on it, he'd publish the damn General Relativity Theory himself! Einstein wasn't great at math. Soon afterward, he published, having found the solution he was seeking. It had been in an early attempt that he had discarded, thinking it wrong. In his desperation, he started looking over his discarded work and there it was. Few people, if any attempted any real refutation at first, though subsequently, more and more did, due to difficulties in observation of background stars during eclipses. Eventually, his prediction for warped space around large masses was shown to be factual by just this sort of observation. All refutations were basically dropped, when the theory was shown to perfectly explain an oddity in the orbit of Mercury, which previous scientists had been completely unable to explain. Harte 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaperS_ParadoX Posted April 20, 2013 #192 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Regarding General Relativity, there was a slew of mathematicians growing more and more impatient with Einstein, waiting for him to finish his solution (which they had already done, while waiting.) One of them publicly announced that if Einstein didn't get on it, he'd publish the damn General Relativity Theory himself! Einstein wasn't great at math. Soon afterward, he published, having found the solution he was seeking. It had been in an early attempt that he had discarded, thinking it wrong. In his desperation, he started looking over his discarded work and there it was. Few people, if any attempted any real refutation at first, though subsequently, more and more did, due to difficulties in observation of background stars during eclipses. Eventually, his prediction for warped space around large masses was shown to be factual by just this sort of observation. All refutations were basically dropped, when the theory was shown to perfectly explain an oddity in the orbit of Mercury, which previous scientists had been completely unable to explain. Harte Thanks for that info Harte, I remember he was afraid at one point that this Mathematician would come to the conclusion before he himself did, so there was sort of a race between them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 22, 2013 #193 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Sarcasm falls flat on its face if you have to label it as such. If people don't recognize the sarcasm, then it's too subtle for them. This may be the author's fault but more likely its the denseness of the reader -- I know I miss stuff of this sort all the time because my English "feel" sometimes fails me, but I know native English speakers can sometimes be dense too. Clever choices of words always carry that risk. Sarcastic font, is sarcastic in itself isn't it? I thought that was the joke? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 22, 2013 #194 Share Posted April 22, 2013 How does the saying go? "Those who believe don't need any proof and for skeptics, no proof will do". Jim Marrs sums it up perfectly in his book "Alien Agenda" when he says that it is a "clashing of mindsets". You either believe there is active life out there and that there is a cover up, or you simply ignore all the circumstantial evidence that would strong imply so. I'm all for scientific proof of aliens and these authors having knowledge about that which they write about. That part I believe is just great imagination and coincidence. These people had to sell books and did so by imagining great things. Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells are great examples of this. However, when talking about the Mars topic, there have been a lot of omitted evidence covered up by NASA and other institutions that would know about these realities. Just look at their photos of Mars[and even other planets] and how they are edited and cut. Why would these photos need to be edited? Is there something there they don't want the public to know? Even the most hardened skeptic would have to admit there seems to be logic behind changing pictures and lying about what the official story is versus what may actually be out there. What those motives behind the logic are remains a question to which it is up to each individual to decide. It does seem like more and more these types of things are swept under the rug so to speak and we are expected to ignore them. Ohhhh stuf and nonsense. You are not interested in scientific proof of any kind. You only care about CT's and UFOlogists because they say what you want to hear. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 22, 2013 #195 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I like Bee`s statement "when a pronstar starts using emotive words like peddled snake oil & gullilble" Now thats a Gem ! I like your version better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Dave Posted April 22, 2013 #196 Share Posted April 22, 2013 http://www.infowars....ticket-to-mars/ FYI, you gotta click on reading the full article to get the whole story and part about their being a thin atmosphere on mars... Conspiracy factory... alex jones site...24/7 crap.. But i do agree with you to some point.. Life did exists i dont know if inteligent but had life.. I even think there was a link between Historic Egypt and Mars but to go further people will think it is crazy because one cannot prove such theories. But if someday someone or something on Mars will dig through sands of time and they will encounter any kind of Egyptian similar structure burried there it would make my theory much more real. Since we dont have the means for such a dig or exploration yet.. i mean we have but we dont money or interest for that, it probably wont happen. Nevertheless if they find any structure under that sand would probably prove very much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterFlint Posted April 22, 2013 Author #197 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Whoa bro!!! Number 1, the story was linked from info wars site......SO IT WAS FROM ANOTHER NEWS SITE AND INFOWARS WAS JUST RUNNING IT SO IT WAS A LEGIT NEWS PAGE NUMBER 1! And number 2 info wars in itself is a legit news site!!! It isn't crap, he reports on things the media hides under the rug, and if your one of those people who thinks the government is all warm and fuzzy and would NEVER hurt you, your one of the biggest fools on the planet, we need more Alex Jones's in this world and it might be a better place! I didn't see other news agencies reporting on how the U.S. was helping ALQUEDA Forces conquer Libya and create a genocide of the black people in that country, but infowars sure told the truth!! Get educated man! cant believe I changed the subject on my OWN topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted April 23, 2013 #198 Share Posted April 23, 2013 How does the saying go? "Those who believe don't need any proof and for skeptics, no proof will do". Jim Marrs sums it up perfectly in his book "Alien Agenda" when he says that it is a "clashing of mindsets". You either believe there is active life out there and that there is a cover up, or you simply ignore all the circumstantial evidence that would strong imply so. I'm all for scientific proof of aliens and these authors having knowledge about that which they write about. That part I believe is just great imagination and coincidence. These people had to sell books and did so by imagining great things. Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells are great examples of this. However, when talking about the Mars topic, there have been a lot of omitted evidence covered up by NASA and other institutions that would know about these realities. Just look at their photos of Mars[and even other planets] and how they are edited and cut. Why would these photos need to be edited? Is there something there they don't want the public to know? Even the most hardened skeptic would have to admit there seems to be logic behind changing pictures and lying about what the official story is versus what may actually be out there. What those motives behind the logic are remains a question to which it is up to each individual to decide. It does seem like more and more these types of things are swept under the rug so to speak and we are expected to ignore them. You know the post I left Big D with all the picture of those men? Why is it Type 1 can back their claims, but type 2 cannot? That is what you are talking about above is it not? Or is it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 23, 2013 #199 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I have woof ... and I mean weal woof ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxus Posted April 25, 2013 #200 Share Posted April 25, 2013 MasterFlint, welcome. There is no face, no pyramids, no canals and there are NO TREES on Mars!!! ALL those things are just crazy wishful people on the internet who don't want to bother spending time REALLY looking at Mars! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now