Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Because it isn't enough to just survive, assuming the powers that be allow us to survive once we are completely defenseless. Its about freedom, that's more important then anything. "Give me liberty or give me death". There are ways to protect these kids. Many great idea's have already been brought up. Taking away any chance we as a people have to fend off tyranny is the most foolish way to go about this. What's worse, it wouldn't even help. If a person has gone that far off the rails where they are willing die to kill a bunch of people, they are gonna find a way. It isn't even that hard to come up with such a plain. Hell two cars and a long cable could take out a hundred people in a crowd easy. Moral degradation is the cancer causing this. It's sick to me that people think they can put a band aid over that. Also its so funny to me that people think the right to bear arms is based in fear. Its based in strength. Personally I never even think about it at all, unless I'm talking to someone who wants to disarm me. I mean, do you really think we are walking around in fear? People who are afraid of freedom are the ones who have become willful slaves to fear. And because of it you just might find yourself turning into a actual slave, cause there would be nothing you could do to stop it when they put a gun in your face and tell you to get to work.
  3. Something tells me that particular story came verbatim from a letter penned by Scott from the warm confines of his SQ cage.
  4. ChaosRose

    It seems like I'm in the South Park Jameson episode...just without the Jameson. 

  5. I think we've discussed this before, but I believe we're both realist with pessimistic leanings.
  6. As for the Officers that waited outside, its tough to comment on it unless you've been in that situation. Those guys aren't paramilitary, they aren't repelling through windows with smoke grenades. The day the before they were probably handing out traffic tickets. Seems to me like they were bound by policies and procedures
  7. I feel like I'd be happier as an optimist, but I wouldn't be as grounded in reality. It's a trade off. Plus, there's no switch that you can flip and just instantly become an optimist.
  8. Agreed. For how hot this topic is, this has been one of the more constructive threads for all of us. We are learning as we go and adjusting the discussion accordingly...I think it's because this problem transcends politics. Doesn't matter who you voted for, no one here is willing to put up with more kids being hurt. Good job, guys - hopefully we can find a solution that works.
  9. Peer review looks at submitted papers and asks basic questions such as: 1. Does the conclusion follow from the work done? 2. Is the necessary scientific material such as methods and results included?
  10. An interesting question is...why doesn't he have money? An awful lot of it passed through his hands. Where did it go?
  11. In addition to the parrot nonsense published in the JSE here is an editor that is an AIDS denialist.
  12. I really commend people for not getting so hot over this topic that it ended up closed. I know emotions run high with this, but it's a discussion that should be had.
  13. Thanks. Somebody reasonable at last.
  14. Illyrius An unfortunate choice of words, but yes, I'll bet you do care. CH De gustibus non disputandum. Because I am a frequent critic of Dawkins, it is especially important that I acknowledge his strengths when they are relevant to the discussions in which I participate. And yet the planes do not land, even though the cargo cultist carefully places one half-coconut over each ear, and securely fastens them there with sturdy vines. Just like real air traffic controllers do, only with headphones, at airports, where there are planes. Otherwise, though, it's 100% identical. Nobody's stopping the guy. We're just telling you what we think of his product, and why we're willing to spend those extra few bucks and install caller id at emergency services call centers. Y'know, instead of having the operator's mind feel who's calling, from where, and what the problem is.
  15. Just to step in where I'm not wanted. Can I answer the questions please? Yes they are scientists. Yes they have a journal. Yes they follow a system of peer review of their own choosing. Now, Stereologist was trying to get you to look at what exactly peer reviewing was and why it is done. (I think) He wanted you to look at a case where peer review has proven a hypothesis and one where it proved it incorrect. Then if you compare the peer review methods used in those cases with ones supplied by JSE you will find they do not match. The peer review for JSE does not require them to gain independent verification from outside sources. It only requires those that are a part of the organisation, i.e. those who want to prove the paranormal to exist, to verify the papers. So, the point of peer review is to eliminate any errors or mistakes in a paper and grant it a verified status through means of independent testing.
  16. Even the greatest fiction can be considered to be true, if it is the only counter to what you don't want to be the truth.
  17. I'm just saying this is the future of weaponry. They want to put lasers on AC-130 gun ships too. I didn't mean to imply lasers were totally new.
  18. People expect churches to help the poor and the sick, but they're really not about that. Sure, there's some lip service to it, and a rice bowl now and then. And maybe they get members of the congregation to do nice things for other church members. Ultimately, though, the Church is about converting people and "saving their souls." And apparently, also hugely about amassing wealth and power for the Church. It helps if they can sweep clergy wrongdoing under the rug, and this is one way they can avoid having to report it.
  19. I see you can't read and comprehend. Unlike you I posted a reason for not answering the question. You posted a really stupid question which was vague and nebulous. You don't even name people. You vaguely refer to "those people." What do you mean by "those people"?
  20. Hi Chaos We are in agreement. jmccr8
  21. OK obviously you cant answer a simple question. Bye.
  22. As I repeated have stated it doesn't matter. The journal is or is not a scientific journal independent of the staff. That is why your question doesn't matter. Have you figured out what peer review does? You gave a definition, but not what peer review does.
  23. Science - produces I never mentioned your path I merely stated that we should probably converse using unprovable statements on both sides, to make it fair Your second point is only being made because of your own fear. If we really are living in a simulation then that is far less horrific, in my mind, than a personal entity that tortures its own creations. The difference between us here? I don't rule out any possibility that I cannot conclusively prove to be untrue. For simulations sake, why would I move to your path?
  24. The JSE had or has an editor named Henry Bauer. He is an AIDS denialist. He denies that there is any scientific evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV. Great staff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Bauer
  25. It would make perfect sense if it was the demiurge, Yaldabaoth...the embodiment ? of chaos. Not such a nice entity, though. Hardly one worthy of worship.
  26. Can you answer a simple question without distracting. What are those people, are they scientists or not?
  1. Load more activity