Thomas Kirby

Pangloss it is sort of about you. You seem to have the same general attitude. You may be a bit more refined about it. You do seem to lump anyone who is anti-war into a category of people who have some kind of personality disorders. What you said about Cindy Sheehan, your talk about her "hooking up with Michael Moore", the way you present your views says something about the way you look at this thing. Even if you don't use the word "nigger" to try to look better, you still seem to push war-hawking as some kind of morally superior thing.

What I also encounter, on the net, at work, and on the streets, are chest-beaters who dinosaurs would think of as having small brains, who don't even seem to understand that there is a possibility that they are being rude when they strut around people who are non-military or who don't have the killing of other human beings as one of their favorite goals in lives. They make these jokes about Moslems that have a lot of viciousness behind them. They feel free to use a lot of racial epithets against them. A lot of the bully comes out. They've found someone to crap on, they want to enjoy this, and even more than the idea that some of them had something to do with 9/11, they just want to exercise their violent natures.

So you don't use certain words, Pangloss, but you definitely seem to have a lot of common cause with them, and you don't seem to understand when your rhetorical tactics have gone too low, not the way you talked about Cindy Sheehan. Yes, you have done a little bit of that to me. I feel like you look down on people who oppose war. I also feel like you look down on anyone who thinks that the U.S. could ever commit a war crime.

Whatever it is you aren't, you still seem to find it far too easy to excuse an illegal war against a country that is almost 20 times smaller than the U.S. and has over a hundred times less military capability. You act as if this makes you morally superior to anyone who feels differently, too.

The results of the Lorentz formula reach infinity when it divides by zero.

Fear also shuts down the intellect. Even a genius like me needs all the brains he's got.

Firefree 88

Check out the site. They have the results of numerous tests that prove that the paint applied over wood or gypsum board resists 2000 degrees F for 2 hours. They have done side by side tests of treated and untreated structures too. They have a long list of certifications of actual tests according to Fire Industry standards. The fact that this material protects wood from 2000 degree heat for 2 hours has been exhaustively proven. It has even been tested on foam panels. I personally find it hard to believe that this stuff can protect foam panels from melting. I would like to see the egg test tried with this material. Paint an egg, hold a torch to it, and see if the egg coagulates inside.

One potential problem is that this paint expands when heated. That might cause flaking, it might not. It might also mean that it won't deflect heat well at lower temperatures.

Who says that it doesn't glow when heated?

To have a place in the hall of shame for all those who label people as pseudoscientists and cranks, how about we add the category "Total Jerk"?

The Lorentz contraction was invented to explain that the measuring apparatus foreshortened in the direction of travel, thus making it difficult or impossible to measure our progress through the space-time continuum using the Michelson-Morley apparatus.

Dak (feel free to slap me if I ever call you "Dax"), thank you for the link. Here is a quote from that link which is exactly in line with a lot of what I am saying:

consentual sex before the AoC does not usually result in long-lasting psycological harm.

Another gem:

the branding of the young participant of consentual pre-AoC sex as a victim can cause damage.

That is one of the things that I am saying. The practice is far more pervasive than that, though. Any child who is considered a "victim" of some kind of illness, syndrome, or whateverthehell is forced into a different world. In my own personal experience, making the child's life a living hell (and I'm not sure about the "living" part) is considered by many to be therapeutic. There is also a very large dose of sadism against any child who is considered to be different. One of the big differences between me and the rest was that I was not a bully, and I suffered for that one, too.

Saying that consent does not exist before a certain age is overly simplistic. When something legally does not exist, that does not mean that it does not exist. Someone decided that it did not exist. That decision was made at a time when it was still acceptable to hang black men for being suspected of having any relationship with white women. It was also acceptable to ban birth control information. So I could hardly say that this particular decision came from any particular kind of enlightenment. This was also at a time when most consensual sex between adults was banned.

You mentioned rape. Rape, real use of force against an individual to try to have sex with them, could be treated as aggravated assault and lose the special sexual component of the charges that so enhances the perception that a bad thing was done. I approve of charges that involve actual harm done to the individual, not "potential" harm which is largely imaginary, or things that cater to mass hysteria. I cannot approve of laws that pretend to protect people but push a moral agenda that is destructive of their freedoms.

It's real. It compromises a person's life and makes him socially and financially dysfunctional. Don't ask me how I know.

The evidence is actually in plain view, Cpl. Luke. First, the tests show that the paint is able to resist 2,000 degrees F, about 1093 C, for two hours. If the wood behind that paint is not emitting gasses, charring, being eaten away behind that paint, we can take an educated guess from real-world evidence that not very much of that heat is getting to the wood. Wood emits flammable volatiles at temperatures less than 500 degrees F.

I would like to see the results if someone places temperature sensors behind this paint. I think that it refuses heat by being a very efficient radiator, a lot like the shuttle tiles. That does mean that its ability to refuse heat increases with the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the heat source. It would be a lot better for refusing heat from the sun that from the air. One thing that I think it is able to do is greatly reduce the amount of heat that insulation behind it is exposed to.

I think that I would look for a better reason than an equation that was supposed to explain why we can't measure etheric drift. Look up the origins of the Lorentz equation.

whilst i fundamentally agree with you, it is still pretty firmly established that sex with underage childeren carries a high risk of being damaging; hence the reluctance to allow it.

How high? I heard that God won't let us look at the research. He has people running around gathering it up and burning it. If you want to declare that this is potentially harmful to underage children, prove it scientifically.

all quite true, and something that i feel needs to be adressed. If a child has sex and manages to survive the experience with no ill effects, then any subsequent treatment at the hands of the legal system should not carry the risk of being a potentually damaging ordeal; However...

 

...this doesnt follow. Its a fact that sexual intercourse with childeren can be potentially damaging, and that the potential for causing damage (and the magnitude of that damage) is greater in childeren; therefore, it has been banned.

Why does it even occur to you to use the term "potentially" damaging? You are using an equivocal statement as support for something that you consider to be unequivocal.

wether or not you agree with peoples oppinions on sexual abuse, or wether or not it is damaging in 100% of cases, is irrelevant. A descision was made, based on the (by no means unfounded) assumption that banning sex below a certain age would be in the best interests of childeren as a whole, and -- like all other laws -- it has to be enforsed.

I don't think that the best interests of the children were at the root of this "decision." Don't you just love that kind of phrase? "A decision was made" as if we regard legislators from a hundred or so years ago as the Lords of Cobol. Were four of them the fathers of all of us? It's really hard to take seriously the extreme high esteem that people seem to hold these people in.

This nessesetates the concept of a 'sex offender', wether you like it or not.

 

 

 

as i read it, it means sexual morality as defined by a consensus of the masses, and pushed onto everyone.

When I use the word "masses" in that context, I tend to leave out the "m".

IE, you could argue that sosciety puts pressure on us to abstain from, say, sado-mashichism, due to the fact that it is 'deviant' and 'perverse'; or homosexuality for the same reasons.

 

Whilst id agree with thomas that there should be no reason that two consenting adults cant engage in S&M (or homosexuality) in the privacy of their own home, i dont see anything wrong with society trying to enforse the 'sexual moral' that 'sex with childeren is wrong'.

 

at least, thats how i read it; appologies if im wrong.

I have the absolute God-given right to see something wrong with society trying to enforce that particular sexual moral. It doesn't even matter how I personally feel about the deed itself, and I personally feel that it's repulsive. One of my gripes is that people will attack me if I exercise that right.

Try Google. Also try "compulsory sex morality" and "Wilhelm Reich."

Did anyone ever produce a power-efficient drive based on any kind of electrical acceleration of any sort of matter?

This just goes to prove that we should have paid more attention to Einstein. Most physicists seem to believe that he could walk on water. It never occurred to us to ask him to explain how he did it.

No matter how badly you and Michael Moore wish it' date=' the insurgents of Iraq will never be "Freedom Fighters". One simple difference alone is enough to make the distinction: Freedom fighters don't slaughter their own people to get what they want.

 

And the fact that you don't understand that is [i']why[/i] you don't have anything interesting to add to this discussion.

One thing that I understand is that the people who support this "war" against Iraq will stop at no indecency in their speech to hurt and humiliate those who oppose the war. I get a little tired of the popularity of each new version of Sherman's march to the sea over the newest bunch of "ragheads" and "sand niggers" that our usual bunch of braindead rednecks are mad at this week. Sometimes they sound more like they are trying out a new form of sexual kinkiness than actually fighting for any real US interests. I get tired of the mental and physical abuse that this bunch is willing to heap on people whose crime is to believe that we can live at peace with the world if we simply fail to stir trouble for fun and profit. The thing that is almost the most sickening about it is the people who act like going to war like this makes them superior to those of us who think that there are better things to do with life. The most sickening is those of us who buy into that "morally superior" act.

Now do you have anything interesting to add to that?

Probably in the minority here, but ive met a lot of sexually abused people and i knoww the damage it causes. They are another portion of societie that has been forgotten. Id have true sex offenders executed if I had it my way. Every time they reoffend is another innocents life pretty much ruined. And i value the lives of the innocent over the depraved

That doesn't mean that you can correctly assume that every sexual act with someone who is underage is abuse. It is also very possible to abuse someone's sexuality without any overtly sexual behavior or illegal activities. Compulsory sexual morality is perpetrated by a system of physical and mental abuse that is all but invisible but causes tremendous damage to its victims. Yes, this damage is like the damage caused by sexual abuse. I firmly believe that it is a form of sexual abuse. It is the most prevalent and the most damaging. It also makes us hate anyone who wants to try to help us out of the system of abuse.

To tell you the truth, if some child's life is ruined because someone groped him when he was seven years old, we've got something else wrong here. From my perspective what damage follows is because his family, his therapists, and maybe his teachers and law enforcement do things to him because he is no longer a human being to them. He is a "victim of sexual abuse" and he could very well be exposed to more injury from his caretakers because of the taint of sex than if he were groped a hundred times. Doesn't anyone stop to think just how hard the allegedly straight and moral caretakers of children are on them when it comes to sex? They can be more than abusive enough to cause all sorts of post-traumatic stress disorder. They will force the child to attempt to deceive himself about who abused him and how. They will simply blatantly tear the child apart mentally just to be sadistic. They will do sneaky little tricks to him just to hurt him. No apologies to anyone that this statement offends, but "sexual abuse" as I think it is defined by many of you is nothing special. Making it special takes something away from other survivors of abuse, distracts us from knowing anything useful about child abuse, and helps blind people to the real abuses that occur that are far more prevalent than overt sexual misconduct. So that is just one more reason not to give a care about whether someone's abuse is sexual or not. It is also a very good reason not to believe that every overtly sexual act is abuse.

You would think that if a man raped a woman, being raped once himself would be an approximately equivalent consequence. I get the impression that revenge isn't satisfied even if that man is raped in prison a thousand times. I don't think that anyone who is vengeful ever can be pleased unless they want to be. For one's own self, that is a good reason not to be vengeful. Going through life without the ability to be pleased sucks.

Imagine what would happen to our justice system if every time someone committed an offense, the prosecutors had to prove that that individual act caused harm and how much.

Just for some of the audience: I say that something is a crock because I personally believe it is a crock, not because it's some popular bandwagon thingamamoron or whatever. I see a world of difference between something that has a one in a million chance of causing cancer and something that has a one in thirty chance of causing cancer. Also, I can't see that using a Freon-based foam to cover the external tank of the space shuttle is going to be any danger to the environment, even if Freon were a danger to the environment, which is something else that I don't believe. There's probably less freon in that much expanding foam than there is in one home air conditioning system that sits broken in a trailer park and leaking freely. And we're going to have an airplane somewhere falling out of the sky because the manufacturers of its circuit boards are no longer allowed to use lead which, if you really think about it, is effectively less toxic than the doses of pink liquid that kids take for tummy aches. (If any of these branching issues want to take off, please let us make a conscious effort to open new threads.)

I don't even know how it is that a non-freon-based foam can't stay together the way that a freon-based foam can, but if there were a way, they would have found it by now.

A connected issue that may still be somewhat on topic is why was it not until this year that they came up with ways to work on the shuttle in orbit? What kind of completely cockeyed and drugged-up optimist ever thought that, knowing that those tiles fall off every time they launch, that they could always safely re-enter the atmosphere at Mach 22 without even being able to look and see if they had holes in the wings? This sounds like material for a comedy monologue for Jeff Foxworthy. It ain't funny. Even I could probably design something that would do the job. Design something that can be worked from an open cargo bay that can lift a camera around and scan the underside. I'd want that before the first launch. Somehow it reminds me of those ships they had on that one "space marines" show on the Sci-Fi channel. Their Ticonderoga was designed pretty much like a typical sea-going battleship. It had no effective armaments or even a visible viewport on its bottom side. The enemy is going to be polite and always approach from the side that has the weapons mounted on it? Or we just assume that the armor on the bottom can deflect projectiles that are travelling at a solid fraction of the speed of light? Anyway, if you can't work on the underside of your vehicle, and you can't even look at the underside of it, you are in grave danger if you try to hit the atmosphere like a flying brick trying to smash into a mountain and slide down the side of it without being shattered or broken. If you can't protect your undercarriage... We already know the rest of that story.

So our astronauts were killed by political correctness.

Looking at the MSDS of that fireproof paint, there's a lot of little fiberglass and other slicate based compounds in there. Those things aren't good to get into your lungs. The application of the paint wouldn't pose too much of a problem, but if you then sanded it off later you'd be putting a lot of fiberglass and silicate particles into the air. It would be kind of akin to asbestos. Remember, lead paint really doesn't pose a problem at all during application of when it's on the wall. It's when the paint is 'messed with' that you get a problem.

These things aren't anything that we aren't already used to handling. People routinely sand fiberglass repairs on cars. Also, there is a system for removing paint that uses solvents that as far as we know are not harmful. Outside of directly breathing non-water-soluble silicates into the lungs, they are not particularly hazardous and are fairly biologically inert. Lead on the other hand, well, we already know about lead. So you don't sand it off if you are worried. Most likely if it needs any fixing people will just paint another layer over the old one. They're not going to repaint any of the wood behind the walls. What's stupid about regular gypsum wallboard is that although the gypsum won't support combustion, the paper it is stuck to will, and the cheap stuff breathes and is fairly fragile. Impregnate the paper with a substance that can withstand 2,000 degrees, it isn't going to burn. People routinely paint wallboard by adding layers, not by sanding old layers off. The places that you even might have to worry about that are on fancy wooden floors or walls.

If I remember correctly, the fear of asbestos started over questions of a chance in a million or a few chances in a million that asbestos might cause cancer. Some people say that the odds of getting cancer from a CAT scan are one on one hundred, and the chart of acceptable radiation exposures gives chances of something like one in thirty-one.

One thing I wanted to mention, that I logged in for, is that it just occurred to me that paint over the foam could keep the moisture out. I don't think that a consistently closed-cell foam is possible in a spray-on type. I think that moisture gets in through the foam and condenses and then freezes inside the foam. This is very elementary stuff, by the way. Styrofoam is actually molded and the molding process seals the surface. If the spray-on foam is kept dry and maybe also kept hot, it can be painted with very little moisture inside the foam. It may indeed take five hundred pounds of paint to cover the foam, but that tank has a solid fraction of an acre in surface area. The moisture that can condense in the foam weighs a lot more than five hundred pounds. Heck, the moisture that can settle on there from rain probably weights more than five hundred pounds. That also, by the way, can get into the foam.

Actually, the question of whether this can be done with the paint is the one that I am asking. The foam obviously has problems. We are talking about the agency that put men on the moon. You would think they could fund a team to the tune of 100 million dollars to do what it takes to produce a foam that doesn't peel off and doesn't absorb water into it to ice up and flake off. God didn't declare that this had to be a foam, either.

An insulating paint along similar lines, and this just occurred to me while I was typing up the essay about the fireproof paint, may be what it takes to make an insulating coating that will not absorb water, will insulate adequately for the mission, and will stay put. For all I know it might even weigh less, especially since it would stay dry. From the sounds of all this, they might have better luck with some of the fancier forms of concrete. Some forms of concrete are more like composite materials, are flexible, won't take up water, are lightweight, insulating, and very strong.

If it is taking over 3 years for them to solve a problem that is actually more than 20 years old, someone needs to get on the ball. I personally found it pretty nearly impossible to believe that the SRBs had gaskets between them that could not withstand conditions that were well within the limitations of the artificial rubber used in car tires. It's as if they used unvulcanized rubber. I'm finding it impossible to believe that NASA can't solve this problem in 20 years.

I'm thinking that the larger grades of glass microspheres could be combined with the fireproof paint to make it a better insulator that can take the extreme temperatures of supersonic flight. It wouldn't absorb water like foam does. Water condenses in the foam, freezes, expands, and makes the foam peel off. Maybe it wouldn't be as effective a cold keeper as the foam, but it would still be a good thermal break between the tank and the heat of the sun or the heat of supersonic flight. Having to replace more cryogenic fluids is expensive, but it's not as expensive as having the shuttle fleet grounded. It's also not as expensive as losing a ship. That's the choice that NASA is going to have to make unless they can make an insulating foam that doesn't peel off.

Maybe we should start a thread about using this to prevent house fires? Like I said, I can't believe that the news isn't all over the place. Every town has had at least one fatal house fire in the last decade or two.

Can anyone put my finger on the expanded form, one that is readable?

A government is a good analogy to an abusive father who doesn't care if his kids live or die as long as he has enough of them to work the fields and mines.

Beautyundone, I also would dismiss the case where a man did not actually meet with a 14 year old girl and did not have sex with her. I agree with the judge's stated reasons. No actual 14 year old girl was involved. Deception by the police was involved. I doubt if the judge is honest enough to do this for everyone, though. Maybe the reason he did that was because he was friendly with the lawyer, not that he thought that the practice was wrong. This would be unfortunate. Among other things that I detest there are three major items. One is the rape of children. Another is drugs. The third is undercover police narcs. I detest narcs because they make the practice of law enforcement into a web of deception of humans and of judges and juries.

All this does not mean that I have to believe that there is a baby when I see bathwater. It also does not mean that I have to allow myself to blindly refuse to see when a law, an arrest, or a conviction are nonsense. I also can't refuse to call nonsense just because someone invokes the "it's for the children" clause. Things like the McMartin case have educated me that our prosecutors and child protective services don't know how to play right, so we need to take away their toys.

Pangloss, what is bothering me is not the laws but the deeds of the people who abuse them and deliberately maximise the unnecessary destruction of other humans to make names for themselves. It also bothers me that people go along with it.

I said maybe paint it instead of, not on top of the spray foam. Why do they think that foam like that even could stay on, anyway?