John Cuthber

The idea that people get drunk on beer is sound science. Tolkein's books mention getting drunk. that doesn't mean that elves and goblins are based on science

The peace symbol has the CND logo the wrong way up. So it no longer reads as N D in semaphore but UD or CE. Very careless of them. It's easy to compile a bunch of nonsense but include some real science (like pair creation) then say "it must be true- it has real science in it". Copying a few facts doesn't make it real. Copying an alphabet badly isn't difficult either ; it doesn't prove anything . Wondering about time travel isn't a "new field of research" and it wasn't when HG wells did it. "I like to add that Plejaren scientist named Sejasa took a native earth women Eve and fathered the caucasian race as refered to in the bible 13000 years ago" Well, since the bible says 6000 years ago and reality (you know- actual scientific evidence) says that there were people 200,000 years ago then the idea of 13,000 years being either correct or even WhatItSaysInTheBible is absurdly wrong.

No. Boiling mercury is very dense- it sloshes around and, if/when it bumps, it breaks the glassware. The glass is half way to it's maximum temperature limit and that reduces its strength. Then it runs down into the heater and boils off. The vapour floods out and contaminates the area: that area stays contaminated until someone puts a lot of effort into a clean up. The bromine is much less likely to break the glass. If it does, a fair bit of it will run down onto the heater and will, quite probably react with it. So your heater's dead. Very sad, give it a decent funeral. The remaining bromine is dispersed into the atmosphere and diluted to a point where it's harmless. Seriously, which site would you be happier visiting an hour later, a bromine spill or a mercury spill?

One of them is doing its best to be the market leader. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/08/mitt-romney-616-lies-in-33-weeks/

You know it's not a strawman, it's the message that the creationists are trying to push. Claiming that all they want is "having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " is just plain wrong and it's obviously wrong. So, it's a strawman. Why don't you admit it?

"You accuse Republicans of being intolerant and close-minded. " I can't speak for anyone else but I'm accusing them of flat out dishonesty. They say they believe one thing then they say they believe the exact opposite. Either they have no idea what they believe or they are deliberately lying. And I don't think they are too dumb to know what they are saying so that leaves one option. They are liars. Do you think the US president should be elected on the basis of telling lies? How would you know what he will actually do if he were in power? "If some parents feel so strongly about creationism, what is the big deal about having the teacher quickly mention that "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" ? " Nothing. But that's not what they are saying is it? This is what they are saying http://io9.com/5921074/christian-fundamentalist-textbooks-touting-the-loch-ness-monster-as-proof-of-creationism Now, there's a massive difference "Some people believe that God created all the plants and animals in seven days" is true- some people believe that. On the other hand "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. " is a lie because scientists are not doing that. Now do you really think it's good to tell lies to schoolchildren and present them as truth? Also, strawman arguments are a logical fallacy and, as such, not permitted on this site.

Rigney, in my humble opinion you should start the day by answering the questions posed to you. Only after you have demonstrated your commitment to proper democratic debate should you launch any new points. As far as I can tell that's what you signed up to as part of the rules here.

I note Mr Romney's suggestion of what to do about an incoming hurricane. "We believe this is a time for prayer." Yep, like it worked so well last time.

Interesting, I didn't know who the guy was so I had a look on wiki and found this "In December 2009, Johnson revealed that he had been battling Hepatitis C for over a decade, which resulted in slow speech and a tendency to regularly get "lost in thought in the middle of a discussion"." So at least he has a reason for losing the plot.

Well, thanks for spotting that Rigney, but I don't think it was news to most of us that " Akin is a "for real bat shit nut case" and scary." You may remember that what we asked for (repeatedly) was evidence of any prominent Left wing nut jobs making comparably stupid assertions. Any luck finding those? I realise that Akin has "raised the bar" a bit. If it was difficult to find a matchingly barking Left winger before when all you had to do was find one who believed in dragons, it must be damned nigh impossible now. Is it just that there simply are no serious Left wing politicians who have utterly lost the plot in that way?

I'm really starting to like the guy who believes in dragons. It's roughly as plausible as Todd Akin's views on human biology, and a whole lot less offensive. Surely there's someone out there who can find some footage of a Left winger making a total knob of themselves?

It's amusing to note that wiki has articles entitled clintonism, thacherism, balirism obamaism, clintonism and so on which note the political views or movements of the politicians concerned. The entry for Bushism lists examples of his inability to string a sentence together. And yet, someone can ask, apparently in all seriousness for " a quote from any reputable republican that can top any of the gaffs Biden has made ".

I remain disappointed by the lack of tragicomic videos about notable left wing politicians making absurd claims. Even just a run-of-the-mill flat-earther or YEC would be a start. Surely the entire Left wing can't actually be "really quite sensible"?

OK http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm or ''I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.'' —Mitt Romney, using an unfortunate choice of words while advocating for consumer choice in health insurance plans (January 2012) and ''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.'' —Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009 But all of these are just slip-ups. They are not in the same league as belief in dragons (Though Bachman might really believe what she said: it's hard to tell. If she does then she's got about as good a grasp of reality as the dragon guy.) Perhaps the most striking quote is this recent one from Romney " I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year. " I guess it's near enough to true, but it means he thinks it's morally and politically acceptable to brag about paying a tax rate that would be appropriate if he were on about $10,000 per year. According to wiki "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million" As far as I can tell, even if nearly all of his income is long term capital gains he should be paying 15%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States I'm warming to the guy who believes in dragons. Now Rigney, can you please show me the batshit crazy left wingers? (or is your belief in them a bit like that bloke's belief in dragons, i.e. not actually based on reality?)

As you might imagine, I'm not that familiar with the behaviour of US politicians. Can you provide a link to Youtube or something showing Biden to have lost his grip on reality please? I can see some stories where he made dumb comments through lack of thought but there's a whole world of difference between thoughtless slips like those and a belief in dragons.

I'm still hoping that Rigney (or someone) is going to provide us with some entertainingly batty, credible Left-wing politicians. Otherwise, given the clear examples of nutty Right wingers and a lack of Left wing loonies, I'm going to say that the question which forms the title of this thread has been answered in the affirmative. A party which fields a candidate who believes in dragons has clearly lost its collective mind. If nobody can demonstrate that the Left is just as bad* then I think we can close the thread. * If the two sides are as bad as each other then we might need to redefine "lost their minds" but otherwise, I think belief in dragons counts as a reasonable working definition.

If you really want to drop his blood pressure, why not actually do as he asks and provide some evidence of batshit crazy left wingers actually being chosen to represent a legitimate political party?

I'd just like to tell the people who believe that this is going to work that I have an opportunity to sell a well known bridge in London and also to get lots of money out of some rich businessman's account in Nigeria.

If you are going to put the word "INFERS" in capital letters you should find out what it means. An abstract concept like miles per gallon isn't in a position to infer anything. You probably meant implies "Why is it that we can so easily conceptualize the idea of division in units but not multiplication?" Do you have a problem understanding square metres or a cubic foot? What about the Joule- roughly the gravitational energy released by an apple falling off a table (1 Newton metre)? It seems you are OK with that. We can handle multiplication of units, as long as we understand what the product is. You ask about the " kilogram watt" and I grant you that it's obtuse. But why would you ever calculate it?

The impact of a nuke depends not so much on how much plutonium you put in, but how much of it undergoes fission and thus releases energy. The only way it will explode is if it's all in close proximity to the other bits. Once it gets blown apart the reaction stops. So, one nuke going off next to a bunch of others wouldn't set them off- it would just make a mess. Questionposter, at 100,000,000 degrees (give or take a few zeros) you don't have to design something to evaporate: you don't have any choice in the matter. The casing is designed to be heavy (and also to back-scatter neutrons). If you had an enormously strong casing, it would increase the yield. In reality, you can't. In fiction you can, and nobody minds.

Questionposter. The issue of "Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? " is easier said than done. Nukes need very good timing mechanisms already. If one were late by a few tens of nanoseconds it would get smashed before it could detonate. On the other hand, they do put containers round bombs to increase the yield. They don't rely on the strength of the material- just the mass. If the case is heavy it will take some time to push the case apart. During that time the nuclear reaction can continue. The yield is improved that way. The practical problem of finding something strong enough is another matter- but it's fiction so nobody cares.

She isn't. I forgot to mention that these 12 foot tall; space- alien lizards are shape changers too. Sorry for any confusion I may have created by my error.

Yes, I knew that because I read it here http://www.davidicke.com/ Seriously, David Icke was, I understand, accused of being anti-Semitic. People assumed that his references to a world conspiracy of "reptiles" running the banks etc was a veiled attack on the Jews. His defence was that he really meant that the Queen, the Pope and a whole bunch of other people were 12 foot tall reptiles. (Obviously, but just any reptiles- but Space Alien Reptiles.) It's perfectly legal to be a loony in the UK, so he was not charged with any crime.

I think you may be flogging a dead horse there.

yes, there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis