Ahh, something new, personal attacks. I bet your the life of a party. LOL
Something new? Maybe you haven’t been paying attention. Besides, when Shodan decides to attack you personally, you’ll know it.
Until then, since this thread has reached its third painful page without you yet posting a link, I consider my previous challenge to you closed. That is, since you have not given even the slightest iota of a proof or a source for anything you’ve yet said, I am going to assume that you are full of shit, and that this debate (and calling it a “debate” stretches credulity like Richard Simmons in a size-zero thong) is over.
You lose by forfeit.
Geeze and I was having so much fun. Bye bye
I’ve been trying to find some new thinking on this board that you and others that personally have attacked me and I can’t seem to find any. hmmm, I wonder why that is? Could it be because you have no origional thinking of your own and you have to tear down anyone with an origional thought because you are petty?
To save me the time, why don’t you show me the threads you have spoken in, so I can see for myself.
Well, I had a few thoughts for you here. A little birdy tells me you might want to click here before too much time passes, and we must bid you a reluctant farewell.
Clippety clop, clippety clop. If you catch my drift.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait, BoyScout11, I’m interested in new thinking. Your views intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I wasn’t trying to slam you earlier, I was just commenting that this thread was degenerating and I wanted to go back to your original assertions rather than argue over who was rude to who, or who is closeminded. I think debating over the physical properties of uranium and the effect of uranium on the human body would be much more productive, don’t you?
So why don’t we start with that. You have a theory that depleted uranium weapons form microscopic sharp particles, these particles were absorbed by Gulf War vets, that the particles cause microscopic cuts and tears, and that these cuts and tears are responsible for illnesses among Gulf War vets and their families.
Is that a fair assessement of your views? If not, please correct me.
Now, let’s explore your theory. What makes you suspect that uranium forms microscopic sharp particles? Have you done any experimentation on uranium? Have you read scientific articles on the properties of uranium? If so, please let us know and tell us how we can find the same research you did. Wouldn’t that make sense? Or, if your theory is just based on your intuition or experience about the physical properties of uranium, explain to us why you think your intuition (that is, guess) should be given more credence than, say, mine.
OK, you’ve had other ideas that turned out to work, like hosing yourself off with cold water when you got hot. But I’ve had that idea too, that doesn’t make me an expert on metallurgy or chemistry or physics.
So before we get into some of the other parts of your hypothesis, let’s concentrate on this one part. You can understand why your opponents here want to discredit you, since if they can show that uranium doesn’t form sharp particles then the rest of your theory can be dismissed. Remember, threads like this are read by many more people than those who post. You might not be able to convince your opponents here that you are right, but you just might convince some of the readers who don’t have an emotional investment in proving you wrong.
So what about it? Let’s tackle your first assertion first, and investigate uranium for a bit and forget the name-callers and mockers. They laughed at Gallileo, they laughed at Einstein. But did Gallileo or Einstein give up? No, they did not give up, they used their scientific talents to prove to the world they were right. And that’s what you should do too.
So, you think depleted uranium munitions could form very sharp microscopic particles. Could you explain in detail why you think that?
I wish you had told us that up front, as it would have saved a lot of time and energy. We at the SDMB usually go here when new thinking is required.
Nope.
No shit?
Actually, in the 19th century they came up with this idea that only licensed physicians should practice medicine. Since then, anyone who “offers” the same kind of mulch that you’ve offered is called a “quack.” It hasn’t been addressed here because it’s a long-settled debate.
On this board, everyone does their own research, and your debate stands on the merit of the research you do to support it. If you can’t back up your argument, you open yourself up to ridicule.
“Never apologize if they’re wrong,” eh? That would be a pretty slimy thing to do. So if someone were to come in with a proposition and be told they were wrong, they’d pretty much have to apologize. Unless they chose to “run away when they can’t answer… questions.” I guess changing the subject to the politics of message boards is one way that a hypothetical person would do that. As for anyone who’d resort to “smear tactics,” well, it’s only smear tactics if it’s not true. For example, if you’re full of shit then we’re going to tell you, “Hey, guess what? You’re full of shit.”
Yes, and then it turns into a ceramic. Or so I’m told. What does this have to do with… no, I’m not even going to try to fathom that non sequitur.
There’s a modern machine that does this – to Uranium among other metals! – called a centrifuge. Separating differently sized particles by size and weight, however, is actually a pretty ancient idea.
Excellent! Why settle for something that works just fine? We’ve got this already: it’s a centrifuge on a shaker table. It adds a high-frequency vibration to the gravity to keep the particles moving. Great idea, but you’re at least thirty years late.
Been done. Glad you could join us.
If it’s already known, it’s not new thinking. It’s an untrained mind wandering off its leash, clumsily reinventing the wheel.
Because dyslexia and phlebotomy are not the same science. Have you been reading Aristotle or something? Because the Phlogiston Theory and Natural Law are long-extinct theories. Occasionally when somebody is an expert in two different fields, and the subject is ripe for a sea change, he can offer a new approach.
You can’t spell, you show none of the hallmarks of having had any sort of formal grounding in the scientific method, and your arguments reek of self-congratulatory Natural Philosophy tail-chasing. You appear to be barely literate, let alone an expert in anything, and so the odds that you have any “new thinking” to offer are, frankly, infinitessimal.
No, you haven’t answered Jack Shit. But that’s okay, because we’re having fun pelting you with fruit and stuff.
Awww, poor baby boy, does him feel all defensive about the fact, that he brings nothing new to this board. Him needs a nap. Woohoo, him is cussin mad now. I’m sure your moma will bring you your bottle soon. Nite nite.
How did I miss these BoyScout threads? (I got to here via the Pit thread) If nothing else, they’ve been entertaining reading.
I have nothing to say that hasn’t already been said numerous times. I’m only posting at all to compliment Jurph. Your post #15 in this thread should be gilded in gold and enshrined in the SDMB Hall Of Fame. How have I not noticed your exquisite wit all these years? My loss.
Ah gorsh, shucks, ya got here too late to be able to debate this thread, but hey, ya got here for all the personal attacks. Do you give credit to jurph because you are too ignorant, or was your mother giving you a bath.
…and his father smelt of elderberries?
I don’t know, BoyScout11, earlier on you were talking about the immense respect you have for youth – remember, back when you were dodging the debate of your central premise? – but this baby-talk schtick seems to imply that you do in fact think that young people are lesser debaters.
You can’t have it both ways. Are you saying that you consider youth to be a disadvantage? Because if that’s the case, then you have clearly just engaged in the same kind of “personal attacks” of which you accuse us. If, however, you don’t consider youth a disadvantage, then your posts above are implying that Algernon and I are both “untainted and refreshing” which doesn’t seem to really fortify your (already surrounded) position, since you also seem to think that I bring “nothing new to this board.”
Your claim of me being “defensive” also rings a little false. You’re the one dodging the argument. I’m the one bringing it right back to you, line by line. New thinking? Nope: just the same old tried-and-true technique. I question unsupported arguments, I cite reliable sources, and I string together my facts with carefully reasoned logic.
If you need a refresher – or if you are in fact, totally clueless – on how a debate is conducted, check out these rules for debate. They apply to oral debate, but several of the rules are useful guidelines here, too. I didn’t know what an ad hominem was before I got here, but I sure do now.
That “debating” thing? That’s actually what we all do here. It’s kind of the whole point. You would probably be stunned to see how well it works, but you are clearly impervious to reason.
Hey, I don’t care how much you twist and turn the words and meanings to fit whatever you want them to say. For those out here that are smart enough, they will see the progression of personal attacks and who started with such pettiness. I merely defend myself and if you really want to rant, just go to the bbq puit and hang out with those like yourself. You have twisted my meanings of youth to fit your nasty attitude and mind. Get lost little boy
What I saw was you making unsubstantiated claims and refusing to cite any evidence at all that those claims had any validity. Some people attempted to correct your erroneous assumptions and you refused to accept it. When people began to ridicule your ideas, you became defensive. Now you’ve just made what I consider a personal attack in this thread. That attack was the first that I’ve seen in this thread.
Just out of curiousity, did you notice that you first rejected the notion that you considered youth to be a bad thing, and then used “little boy” as a term of insult? In the same sentence?
And, in case you didn’t realize it, if you put your cursor over the link I provided (that underlined word in blue - here it is again - ) and click your mouse button, you will open a window to a thread dedicated solely and entirely to you. And your presence would be deeply appreciated.
Trust me, you would warmly welcomed there. Very, very warmly.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s your opinion and your entitled to it. I see things differently.
I wouldn’t follow a link to anything you post and just because you have no comprehension skills, in no way reflects on me. Why don’t you go to your closet and pray.
I freely admit to ridiculing you for hiding in your corner and refusing to debate the proposition that you brought to Great Debates. I think I’ve also pointed out your bad spelling, atrocious grammar, and complete absence of logic. But I’m basically just killing time until you decide to show up with a real debate.
Any day now, Steve.
How about you defend your assertions instead? I know, it’s only the fifth or sixth time I’ve asked you to do that.
Since I don’t really want to rant, I think I’ll just hang out here and refute, line by line, every ridiculous and nonsensical thing you say. How’s that sound, instead?
Yeah, sorry about that. I kind of figured that if we weren’t going to debate the proposition at hand[sup]1[/sup] that I could just go ahead and use the aggregate of your argument so far to make you look like a fool. It’s not taking much work on my part, really. I can’t wait until you start to cite some sources. Want to just start a new thread?
That’s always a danger when I argue with you, BoyScout11. By the way, for anyone who has gotten lost, I’ve footnoted my statement above. If you’re keeping score at home, make sure you mark down how many times we’ve tried to bring this back to the DU argument and how many times we’ve been dodged. I swear, it’s like trying to sodomize a greased dolphin.
(1) The proposition for debate here is: Depleted Uranium forms ceramic shards that migrate from the lungs to the bloodstream. I contend that, in the absence of a cite from BoyScout11, that this argument is bollocks. To handicap myself, I have cited several web pages that directly support his argument, as well as the rules for debate, a link to Google, and a tutorial on BBCode.
Yep, I got here just in time to be personally attacked by you. You didn’t disappoint.
And I give kudos to Jurph because not only can he put together a coherent though or two, he can do it with wit and class.
Speaking of coherent (or not) thoughts – you ask me “do you give credit to jurph because… your mother giving you a bath.”? What the hell does that mean? Besmirching the good name of my dear recently departed mother are you? Now that’s pretty low.
And by the way Jurph, while there is a possibility that I’m “untainted and refreshing”, I’m certainly not a youth. 
There is a good chance I might be old enough to be BoyScout’s grandfather. (Though I shudder at the thought.)
Perhaps you should remove these before reading then. They don’t actually work, as any person who was a 12 year old pervert from the 60s could tell you.