zapatos

I was hoping for a summary from you, perhaps a paragraph or two describing why this is significant.

No one here is likely to watch an entire hour long video on the chance it may be interesting enough to discuss. Can you summarize the video for us?

That's probably because you are not here for discussion but to educate us. That's not what we do here.

How very paternalistic of you. This is however a discussion site, not your blog, and certainly you were not hired to come here and teach us. I'm sure there are others who wish to be educated by you, but unfortunately you've come to the wrong place.

Are you looking for praise for your intellect? Perhaps you've improved your inter-personal skills to a level you've never achieved before and wanted to show them off? You are looking to make new friends? What exactly is your purpose on this site? What do you hope to achieve?

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

Lighten up my friend. This is a discussion site, not a boxing ring.

In which case I am not 100% wrong. Thanks for confirming. I don't care if they won't be continued in the future navy. It has nothing to do with my statement about TODAY'S CAPABILITIES.

Who in the fuck do you think you are?!?! Did you consider a disability might not allow me to use Youtube successfully? So you mean in 12 years when we are at "peak mission capability" of the AB? That's when they'll no longer be functional? Now you are just being asinine.

No thanks. So when you said I'd be "100% wrong", you meant I'd be 100% wrong in about 20 years. I can't tell you how shocked I am to learn that a statement I made about our current military capability won't be accurate 20 years from now. Perhaps you overstated things just a bit.

Got anything besides Youtube? When will they be gone?

Hmm. I thought we were still building them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

The problem is that you speak with a confidence that doesn't match your level of knowledge, and you are intransigent with respect to your mistaken beliefs. I suspect you will find very few places that will accept your style of discussion.

Although for some, it is eat, mate, and eat your mate.

One of the many problems is that you are equating mass and volume, which means that YOU are saying that Volume is "just, and only the weight of a substance at sea level on earth, translated to inertia needed to move a certain amount of the substance at a certain velocity over a specific time

To me, "Bill" means "pompous". Doesn't it get tiring getting your jollies by swimming against the current all day long?

I don't believe any of your questions actually answer the question I asked. You are the one who brought up gender in the conspiracy thread, not me.

This falls right in line with Alex's concerns. If there is no more evidence to support your view of gender and sexual orientation than there is to support the 'dozens' of genders and sexual orientations others believe in, how can you tell which is the 'truth' and which is the whacked out conspiracy?

The reason conspiracy theories fail is that they don't have the same level of evidence as the scientifically supported, generally accepted 'truth'. Is there a scientifically supported, generally accepted 'truth' to the 'real' genders and sexual orientations that you are referring to?

So what do you think happened at Sandy Hook and Boston?

Can you make your case here, providing evidence, that these events were not what they seemed?

Sorry, what bombing?

Have you found a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true?

That's not what the article said. The article said the government requested one private company to remove a handful of tweets on one narrow topic. I fail to see how that equates to a country disallowing dissent. As far as I can tell you are railing against an issue that doesn't actually exist.

Is anyone here arguing against that? Do any democratic countries disallow dissent?