Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I never said that it did. I simply asked a question.I doubt it would matter to those who already made up their mind about her credibility.For sure. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, so I'm not sure why you haven't yet laid out your argument for how accepting hush money for lying about something makes one more credible.
Mostly because there really isn't much need to do so. There just aren't that many great circle routes between destinations in the southern hemisphere to justify the extra cold weather precautions that would be required on such flights.Its not easy to fly over antarcticaa you know.Why?
I doubt it would matter to those who already made up their mind about her credibility.How much of Daniels' lying can be attributed to receiving hush money and/or being required to sign an NDA on the matter?Potentially lots and lots. Does it make her more credible if she accepted money for it?
I see no reason to propose that Daniels is more credible than Trump in this scenario. She is guaranteed to have lied.How much of Daniels' lying can be attributed to receiving hush money and/or being required to sign an NDA on the matter?
So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.Yes, it's still an issue, because you still don't have the first idea about FE, but you have the audacity to push beliefs onto others.
Ummm.... The dark blue area in the bottom half of the picture is the sea and the light blue area in the top half is the sky. To my eyes, there is a pretty clear and distinct change from dark blue to light blue in the middle.You are sadly wrong if you think the photo you present depicts a clear distinction, but it doesn't. Go ahead and point it out.
There is no clear distinction between the water and the sky.
You can never be sure of which is which from three miles away.
I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.
The conditions across the three or more miles (depending on your elevation) across the sea determines what kind of view of the horizon you will get. If you can see a nice, crisp distinction between the water and the sky (horizon), then there is a pretty good chance that the conditions across those three or more miles are pretty favorable for such observations. However, if you have any questions about the conditions between the your position and the three or more miles in question, then you should have a trusted associate get in a boat and go out three or more miles and report the conditions along the way. Again, if the conditions are favorable along the way, then there's a pretty good chance that the view from the boat will be pretty much the same as the view from the shore. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand or believe.And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?You have no way of knowing what situations are present at the moment of observation, given you are three miles away.As for knowing the conditions three miles out to sea... Well, it's a fairly trivial thing to have someone go three miles out on a boat and report those conditions back to you via phone or radio.They are at their point, and you are at yours. They are looking at what things look like up close, not from three miles away. Things look different.
And yet there are other times where there is no gradient of color between the water and sky or reflectivity in either medium where the distinction is quite obvious. Don't those situations count?Once again, it is readily apparent the gradients of color between water and sky are, at times, indistinguishable from each other, rendering the delineation between the two (at a point three miles away from the observer) impossible.Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
Same with the issues of reflectivity in both mediums. Both can be very reflective at times. A person has no way of knowing what the conditions of any point three miles away are while standing there looking at it.
Are you concerned that the "line" between the water and sky is not a geometrically perfect straight line? If so, then why should it make a difference in anything but most pedantic sense?You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
And I submit Roald Dahl's work wasn't directly insulting anyone either.Direct insults are not the only way to be offended. For example, some people are offended by explicit sexual references or excessive profanity, even if not directed at anyone in particular. Even someone with an obnoxious attitude can be offensive to some.
The point is, some people can take some things any way they wish.Agreed. Some people are overly sensitive and/or go out of their way to look for things to be offended by. Some people get over zealous in trying to cater to those people while others are themselves offended by such people and go out of their way to offend them even more.
If a person wants to spend their time looking for insults, they can find them anywhere...
...primarily, however, in their imagination.
This begs the question as to the purpose of the overhead objects or if there ever was any.Consider the military uses of various parts of the EM spectrum other than visible light.
Imagine being an utter dick, incapable of reading.Imagine not feeling the need to resort to personal attacks every time someone disagrees with you.
Of course dirty bombs could exist, although I have not heard of any reports of a dirty bomb being used. Have you? Have you compared the radiation from a dirty bomb to the radiation found at a nuclear bomb explosion?In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.
So, in the world of markjo, dirty bombs don't exist?
Radiation isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb...In context of bombs, then yes, radiation is most certainly evidence of a nuclear bomb. That is unless you can show that TNT or other conventional bombs produce radiation similar to that expected from nuclear bombs.