The point is that the "impossibility" is a fable. The information is pertinent and correct; it is not "mumbo jumbo faux science." I have three degrees in the relevant engineering fields and have worked combustion chemistry as part of my specialty. Guess what? The "MSM" accounts are probably correct. And, having no refutation, you resort only to disparagement and calling me a liar.
I take your unfounded accusation as an extreme insult. It reveals only how deeply committed you are to prejudice.
The one reason is to dispel nonsense, such as the example I debunked. None of these comments have any refutation, because there is none. You get your basic facts wrong and derive incorrect conclusions. I should think that, as lovers of truth, you would be concerned not to go down a false path. But you are in fact allergic to the truth, because it upsets your "theory." Not very scientific.
I beg your pardon. I'm so used to attacks that I took it personally. I'm not sure what you mean by "the handshake," but I have no dispute. That whole data dump on the A.I. conversation was enormously long, and I don't have the stomach for that much reading (sorry). Good on you for being tenacious enough to find (or not find) whatever you found.
I am unimpressed with A.I. and I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people would turn to as being a soothsayer. All you get is popular drivel if it is trained on...popular drivel. Asking A.I. a question to solidify your beliefs is like yelling into a canyon and being pleased with the echo. "See---the canyon thinks so!"
The point is that the "impossibility" is a fable. The information is pertinent and correct; it is not "mumbo jumbo faux science." I have three degrees in the relevant engineering fields and have worked combustion chemistry as part of my specialty. Guess what? The "MSM" accounts are probably correct. And, having no refutation, you resort only to disparagement and calling me a liar.
I take your unfounded accusation as an extreme insult. It reveals only how deeply committed you are to prejudice.
He's only here for one reason. To stir the pot. Deport.
The one reason is to dispel nonsense, such as the example I debunked. None of these comments have any refutation, because there is none. You get your basic facts wrong and derive incorrect conclusions. I should think that, as lovers of truth, you would be concerned not to go down a false path. But you are in fact allergic to the truth, because it upsets your "theory." Not very scientific.
Why would you deport someone who is correct?
No not you. The handshake. Look at its other comments. Its just here to stir shit up.
I beg your pardon. I'm so used to attacks that I took it personally. I'm not sure what you mean by "the handshake," but I have no dispute. That whole data dump on the A.I. conversation was enormously long, and I don't have the stomach for that much reading (sorry). Good on you for being tenacious enough to find (or not find) whatever you found.
I am unimpressed with A.I. and I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people would turn to as being a soothsayer. All you get is popular drivel if it is trained on...popular drivel. Asking A.I. a question to solidify your beliefs is like yelling into a canyon and being pleased with the echo. "See---the canyon thinks so!"