[Ibon]

The world is nowhere near as polite as it used to be,

Careful..... The USA is nowhere near as polite as it used to be. Panama folks are not split and are still kind. Y los uruguayos seguro no estan dejando esta mierda infectar su cultura?

Things in Uruguay are not as bad in this respect yet, but they've been getting worse for decades. I think the trend is global, and not exclusive to the US. People in Panama are probably less nice than they were decades ago, too. But, it could take you one or two decades of living there to see the trend. So, places like Uruguay or Panama may be more civil or polite, but that is relative. I do think the worsening trend is global.

To play devils advocate a bit we have been conditioned to the US being the trend setter on cultural trends globally. Although I acknowledge what you are suggesting that loss of civility is trending downward globally I would also like to suggest that there has been a decoupling of the US being the primary trend setter culturally since quite a while.

The recent polarization and cultural civil war type split in American culture is not a global trend. It is very specific to the USA and the loss of civility and the way Americans feel almost wounded in their sensitivity vis a vis their opponents is unique to America at this moment in time.

Take a moment and go back to the 80's and 90's when the USA was stable culturally and recall how we all viewed the civil war like srife happening in countries like Colombia, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Croatia, Peru, Uganda. We watched from a relative peaceful place as these countries imploded with civil war. That is pretty much how I see the USA at the moment from a Panamanian perspective. Things here are peaceful, not split, the culture is relatively united. And things up in the north in the USA take on the same irrational hatreds, heat, binary split civil war like polarity that resembles a lot the conflicts that happened in the countries mentioned above.

Many of you can recall how we looked upon those countries back then with a naive sense that something like that could never happen in the USA. Alas, it crept up slowly and stealthy when we were least aware and there we have it, we are now at the cusp of going through the same dynamic as we witnessed in those countries.

Of course each of these countries mentioned above had their own unique irrational reasons for their respective splits, religious in the case of Northern Ireland, conservative vs liberal vs narco in the case of colombia, the ethnic split after Yugoslavia fell apart in bosnia and croatia, etc. etc. What they all share in common though is the irrational heat and hatreds and solidification into symbolic tribal positions.

Many of the posters here on po.com demonstrate their rigid alliance with one tribal side or the other and represent a microcosm of the society at large. Some try to stand outside of the split but increasingly those that do this are increasingly isolated.

I am deeply grateful to not be in the USA right now and I want no part in being drawn into the ugly cultural tribalism with all the lack of civility.

I might be over reacting. I have also been suggesting we may be approaching the peak of discord and that the collective will start drawing on a desire toward unity. I was suggesting this might happen once the current clown cartoon demagogue in the white house is gone. But I am not so sure, it seems that the counrty is still hell bent on carrying this cultural divisiveness into more violent territory. Again, just look at any of those countries mentioned above for examples of how bad this might get.

Exceptional America is not immune to this.

[REAL Green]

And from Seattle:

“I Refuse To Work For This Socialist City Council': Seattle Cops Go Scorched Earth In Exit Interviews”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-r ... interviews

“Seattle Police officers leaving the department after a summer of chaos are lashing out at city leadership in their exit interviews, according to KOMO news. "I refuse to work for this socialist city council and their political agenda. This agenda sacrifices the health and well-being of the officers and ultimately will destroy the fabric of this once fine city," said one retiring patrol sergeant who had been with the force for over 20 years. Another officer whose job is 'up in the air' said "The council wanting to defund us and gaining ground doing it. Rioters not being charged even when they assault officers." Another patrol officer from the East Precinct who was resigning after 6-10 years of service offered this explanation for leaving the department: “Current hostile work environment. In a precinct that is under civil unrest by a small group that is constantly committing multiple felonies and attempting to murder peace officers.” When followed up with the question: “What did you enjoy least about working at SPD?” The officer said, “I enjoyed almost every aspect of working with Seattle PD itself. The one thing that I enjoyed the least was the handling of the last three months of riots.” -KOMO news "It's ridiculous" said Crimestoppers Director of Law Enforcement, Jim Fuda, who works with SPD. "Just when you think it can't get more inane, it does." When outgoing officers were asked "Would you like to work for SPD again in the future?" some said they would, but only if things change "drastically." Another officer said "I highly doubt it. You could pay me twice what you’re paying me now and I would not work for Seattle under this current political mayhem, Marxist collaborations and lack of government and police leadership." "It’s an absolute joke and a travesty for the rest of the citizens here in this city, this once beautiful city," according to Fuda. "Our police department is there to protect all of us and because of the cutbacks and the retirements, who’s going to protect our public safety?" In July we reported on a mass exodus of police officers from the Seattle PD. Seattle Police Officer's Guild VP Rich O'Neill told Q13 FOX that local officials "are allowing certain crimes to go on without accountability." "Worker bees on the street, they don't feel appreciated. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life," another source within the Seattle PD told Q13 Fox. And in August, Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best announced her resignation after the City Council crippled her ability to respond to rioters by banning tear gas, pepper spray and flash bangs. She was also excluded from meetings regarding budget cuts.”

[mousepad]

The recent polarization and cultural civil war type split in American culture is not a global trend.

It's a western trend with the US leading, and the rest of the west not far behind.
1. unfairness in education and opportunity for meaningful work. (the rich getting richer)
2. loss of identity due to mass demographic shifts (cancel culture, mass immigration)
3. indoctrination of original sin (white-guilt in the US, nazi-guilt in germania, colonization guilt in the UK/france, conquistador guilt in spain/portugal)

You may have noticed that the EU is also constantly fighting disintegration due to above issues. And the top-down heavy handed approach of one-law-fits-all with disregard for local culture and customs of it's member states doesn't help either.

[REAL Green]

The Orwellian left:

“Facebook Whistleblower Exposes "Hate-Speech Engineering" Group, Staffed With Chinese Nationals; NYPost”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fac ... -nationals

“The ex-insider said the team teaches algorithms to push specific content to the top of a newsfeed while other content gets shifted "dead-last." As explained by the insider, here's how censorship works: The machine-learning algorithm and neural networks don't ban specific content; they just rerank the content on the newsfeed. It's one of the "most sophisticated censorship in human history," noted NYPost. "What they don't do is ban a specific pro-Trump hashtag," said ex-insider. Instead, "content that is a little too conservative, they will down-rank. You can't tell it's censored." What is troubling, is how foreign nationals, ones from China, are working on Facebook's social media censorship team that can directly impact how tens of millions of Americans think. For instance, if the algorithms were instructed to push pro-Trump stories down the feed while pushing up pro-Biden stories, that could quickly impact political thought for many, or even change the outcome of an election if some were undecided. According to NYPost, the Hate-Speech Engineering team includes one research scientist who earned his master's degree in computer engineering from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing…When it comes to the censorship of the Hunter Biden emails, another former Facebook insider told NYPost that Facebook is "almost an arm of the Democratic Party — an arm of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party." On Tuesday, Project Veritas released an undercover interview a Google Cloud program manager that revealed the search engine is intentionally manipulating results to benefit the Democrats. All of this is confirming that big tech is inherently biased towards conservatives. As for Facebook, their choice to hire Chinese nationals from the most censorious societies suggests: If you want censorship and repression, go to the experts! CHINA!”

[Plantagenet]

Tens years left to avoid global catastrophic global collapse due to global warming, says United Nations IPCC

global-warming-catastrophe-warns-landmark-un-IPCC-report

!0 years left?

Thats nonsense. The situation is much worse then that.

In actuality the huge forest fires we now seeing around the planet are releasing so much CO2 that even if human emissions drop to zero, there will still be large amounts of CO2 going into the atmosphere. The planet is so warm now that forest fires and permafrost degradation are going to continue releasing massive amounts of CO2 and CH4 no matter what human do---- and there's no way to stop it.


CO2 emissions from forest fires are roughly equivalent now to 20% of all human CO2 emissions.....and its going to get worse and worse as the planet continues to heat up

Cheers!

[REAL Green]

Tens years left to avoid global catastrophic global collapse due to global warming, says United Nations IPCC...!0 years left? Thats nonsense. The situation is much worse then that. Cheers!

I have studied collpase now for 20 years. This has been an evolution on my academic side which includes the influence of the material available. In the beginning of my journey peak oil was the dominant immediate issue but not the only one. There was also climate change and the extinction process. PO played out and now we see it is an issue but only one among many.

There are many collpase variables that are converging negatively. These are both human and planetary. When one sees the honest science of this then one realizes we are in a great turning that is succession with complexity in decline and forces of chaos on the rise. This is a decline process. Its influence is local and global. Its time frame is immediate and longer term. There is turbulence but also growth and complexity being created. Some of this is human intelligence evolving with increasing sophistication. Some of this is smart adaptation and mitigation filling in niches with constructive change in an overall condition of destructive change of planetary succession. IOW it is complex and self-organizing both human and planetary so putting a time line on that is absurd.

This multifaceted both physical and abstract situation is unlike anything humans have experience in the species history. This is a dawning of a new planetary epoch and a new human era in dramatic short tempo. Months and years are the equivalent to 1000’s of years and even in some cases millions. Change is so rapid now it is beyond comprehension. Putting a time line on this and focusing on one aspect is not adequate.

In fact, science when it comes to solutions is increasing dishonest and corrupt. We already see how corrupt the woke academia and science establishment is with TDS. Never Trump and woke cancel enforcing safetyism is now the accepted political and social postion of western scientist. Science is secondary. This is a human crime. Scientist are now part of criminality as is liberalism. With the solutions to decline it is very similar to woke. You cancel science as need to promote the narrative of the day of green solutions. You cancel talk of collpase. You speak dishonestly about economics of the solutions. You make it appear for instance that you can go 100% renewable and this is clean and the physics and economics work. This is modern science and like modern liberalism it is a lie. Scientist and academia are liars. Not to say the other side is not a lie but keep in mind traditionally liberals and science were closer to honesty. Now they are the biggest liars. This is a terrible crime mainly because it is liberalism and science needed to steer the great human ship towards a better future. It is now steering it to a dark less human future.

With all that said we come back to decline, collpase, and a time line. My studies of this issue are more than just studies it is also a way of life I talk about in REAL Green. I am living the study. I am creating a monestary and a permaculture homestead based on green prepping within the relativity of the status quo that is a farce of unlimited growth. This is both scientific but also the common sense of human nature. The spiritual is included in this systematic approach to a great turning that is a new epoch and human era. This is primarily individual because it is only from proper human scaling can honesty be found. Localism and humility of the spiritual is essential to proper living. Both are disciplines of decline and both are accepting of failure and death.

I see an overall time line of decline that is a slow boil but we also see sectors and locations with immediate collpase dynamics. Some places are seeing weather related changes. Other regions climatic changes. This then becomes a local verses global issue with the planetary. Localized ecosystem failure with other areas only in decline. Some areas are in fact doing better where climate’s movement is improving some species. Here on my farm quail are thriving. They are an indicator species so some aspects of my farm have improved with climate change. Succession opens up niches for new growth in overall decline of complexity. This will be a mixed bag with time lines inadequate and in fact a farce. These time lines are lies of the corrupt scientific establishment. We civilians use them routinely but this is different. We are just guys talking the weather and putting our opinion on things. Where this is a lie is where the IPCC puts a time line on it. They are a corrupt part of science and trying to influence the human narrative with lies.

[AdamB]

I have studied collpase now for 20 years. This has been an evolution on my academic side which includes the influence of the material available. In the beginning of my journey peak oil was the dominant immediate issue but not the only one. There was also climate change and the extinction process. PO played out and now we see it is an issue but only one among many.

Out of curiosity, how much of collapse claims HISTORY did you study, at the time of interest? Everyone should be familiar with the concept that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, right?

You see, if you began 20 years ago, that is only turn of the century. Which would indicate that your interest in claims of things like The Great Dieoff of the 1980's was non-existent. Yet within the history of past collapse claims that were a joke might lay clues as which current ones might fall for the same script.

PO being an example you might be familiar with. Those of us who knew it was a joke in real time were marginalized, as the faith based doomer set just overran any technical arguments with sheer mind blowing doomer spew. PO turned out to be a non-issue, and even more interestingly, the most recent information indicates it isn't even the scarcity argument itself, demonstrating how ignorant this faith based type belief system was all along.

This multifaceted both physical and abstract situation is unlike anything humans have experience in the species history.

The same claim made for PO as well. And as we all now know....it was just another claim that turned out to be a crock.

[REAL Green]

Out of curiosity, how much of collapse claims HISTORY did you study, at the time of interest? Everyone should be familiar with the concept that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, right?

I read books that come out and follow the news daily looking for patterns. Science, economics, socio-political anything pointing to decline. I do this for enjoyment not because I expect the activity to save me. I am actually less collapse focused now and more decline focused. My preps are more permaculture oriented and less mad max orientated. IOW, I have mellowed with time.

You see, if you began 20 years ago, that is only turn of the century. Which would indicate that your interest in claims of things like The Great Dieoff of the 1980's was non-existent. Yet within the history of past collapse claims that were a joke might lay clues as which current ones might fall for the same script.

I studies PO, climate change, and ecology in college as electives in early 80s. I knew about them then but felt like they were much further off in the future to be of concern. At that time, I was embracing globalism and sustainable development principals. I moved to Europe and learned languages.

PO being an example you might be familiar with. Those of us who knew it was a joke in real time were marginalized, as the faith based doomer set just overran any technical arguments with sheer mind blowing doomer spew. PO turned out to be a non-issue, and even more interestingly, the most recent information indicates it isn't even the scarcity argument itself, demonstrating how ignorant this faith based type belief system was all along.

The narrow version of PO was a failure but not the expanded view. The systematic issues of increasing costs of energy in its many forms is a paramount problem pointing to a bleeding of societie’s ability to grow and adapt. Renewables are extenders and NUK is a dead-end IMO. Adequate degrowth will fail too if a modern status quo is desired. So this leaves a decline process. IMA cost of energy is pollution, carbon waste, and ecosystem destruction besides the purely economics of energy with less quality. Efficiency suffers diminishing returns. Humans are making up for some of this decline but not enough. In the beginning either side was generally wrong including your anti-PO side. This is because both sides were not arguing the systematic side but instead the geologic.

The same claim made for PO as well. And as we all now know....it was just another claim that turned out to be a crock.

So extinction, climate disruption, and ecosystem decline with localized failure is a joke? Wow, sorry I disagree

[AdamB]

The narrow version of PO was a failure but not the expanded view.

The "narrow" view of PO was that it happened in 1990, and when that didn't work out various other folks declared it a couple of times early in this century. Any "expanded" view came along after it became obvious that the other views were all geologically and economically ignorant. Revisionist in other words, for the actors to not look at ignorant as the corner reality began forcing them into the corner of.

Hubbert put out the original axiomatic version back in the 1956 and it never changed, and was ignored until the "gee now we look really stupid because we got it wrong" crowd needed an excuse to retreat behind as they ran to hide under rocks.

The same claim made for PO as well. And as we all now know....it was just another claim that turned out to be a crock.

So extinction, climate disruption, and ecosystem decline with localized failure is a joke? Wow, sorry I disagree

Extinction, climate disruption and ecosystem decline have all happened before we humans were around to notice to soil ourselves over it, there is no reason to ever think that given time, we wouldn't get to see it in real time. It isn't a joke, it is just history, doing what history does, and short sited morons like us humans pretending that because we didn't pay attention to those past times or the evidence of it, it must be all special and unique, this time. Because, you know, we are special.

The joke is in thinking that there is any surprise in this, or uniqueness.

[REAL Green]

The "narrow" view of PO was that it happened in 1990, and when that didn't work out various other folks declared it a couple of times early in this century. Any "expanded" view came along after it became obvious that the other views were all geologically and economically ignorant.

My interest has moved more to system thought and the implications of decreasing value of energy due to lower quality. There is also socio-economic issues of oil and pollution. I lost interest in the narrow PO definition early on. I saw the holes in that right away just listening to all voices on the issue. Hard core collapseniks likewise turned me off as not scientific. I am more a moderate. Extremes generally are emotional instead of scientific.

It isn't a joke, it is just history, doing what history does, and short sited morons like us humans pretending that because we didn't pay attention to those past times or the evidence of it, it must be all special and unique, this time. Because, you know, we are special. The joke is in thinking that there is any surprise in this, or uniqueness.

I’m cool with that.

[AdamB]

My interest has moved more to system thought and the implications of decreasing value of energy due to lower quality.

Okay...so...can you explain how your or mine gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas or electricity use has been of lesser quality over the past 20 years during this time of decreasing value?

I consider it counter-intuitive to claim that some arbitrary "value" claim is meaningful considering that all we need to do is examine the use of these fuels 20 years ago, compare them to today, to determine that the empirical evidence of their value contradicts this line of thought.

[REAL Green]

Okay...so...can you explain how your or mine gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas or electricity use has been of lesser quality over the past 20 years during this time of decreasing value?

LOL, The value decline is the fact that the best and easiest hydrocarbon have been produced for the most part.The final product is not an issue although my gas has lower quality becuase of ethanol for many applications on the farm but that is another discussion. Nothing earth shattering about this macro value issue. You know it and I know it but you just want to arguing semantics. Depletion of the best in regards to the production cost but also increasingly the quality of the hydrocarbon source is fully evident. The economy has succeeded very well using liquids of all sorts to make up for this but that does not change the fact that overall value of the resource has declined with decades of production of a finite resource. A more expensive production process is my idea of lower macro value[/quote]

[ralfy]

According to data from the WB, 71 pct of people worldwide live on less than $10 daily.

https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/e ... ow-income/

That means collapse took place long before "collapsology" was even considered.

[Newfie]

Ralfy,

That is a really good point, much of what we identify as “collapse” is a western culture thing.

So here is my question; that other roughly 5 billion living on under $10/day, how much of their food comes from the top 2.5 billion people? Are they primarily sufficient? Or do they rely upon the wet for sustenance? Will our collapse push them over the edge?

[AdamB]

Okay...so...can you explain how your or mine gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, natural gas or electricity use has been of lesser quality over the past 20 years during this time of decreasing value?

LOL, The value decline is the fact that the best and easiest hydrocarbon have been produced for the most part.

LOL indeed.

Define "best" please. And "easiest".

It took Drake maybe 3 weeks to drill a well to 70', which produced a couple barrels per day?

A Bakken well can kick out 15,000 feet of measured depth in 2 weeks, and can make a thousand or two barrels per day.

I need YOUR context for these relative words to have any hope as to understanding if you know anything about which you speak, or just say relative and meaningless words on this topic because you haven't thought about any of it for longer than the 5 seconds it takes you to make your original energy claim....a baseless one if you haven't in fact put the most basic empirical on it as I just did.

The final product is not an issue although my gas has lower quality becuase of ethanol for many applications on the farm but that is another discussion.

The lower "quality" of which you speak isn't because of the change in base hydrocarbons involved, but because of legislatively required blending changes. The output fuel is REQUIRED to be inferior, it wasn't made that way because of a lower quality hydrocarbon input.

Nothing earth shattering about this macro value issue.

That is the point I am making, yes. Thanks for arriving there so quickly.

You know it and I know it but you just want to arguing semantics.

I'm not the one claiming "best" and "easiest" as any kind of argument for my point. I do numbers, data analytics, and you know, understanding real live energy flows, use and economics instead.

Depletion of the best in regards to the production cost but also increasingly the quality of the hydrocarbon source is fully evident.

Sure...and "best" to you means what? Stuff you like because you got into collapse, decades after it was supposed to have happened, you missed that in your research and settled on decline as a comfortable replacement after you found out (unlike those of us who knew in that advance) that peak oil was a tale sold to faith based believers who are suckers for that kind of stuff?

Do you even understand that hydrocarbon depletion in the US has been going on variously since 1821 for natural gas and 1859 for oil and yeah, and depleting ourselves faster than about any other producing province to become the world's sole hyperpower, and then come back half a century and do it ALL OVER AGAIN? Give that fact more than a seconds worth of thought and explain how it fits into your "best" and "easiest" all being devoured without a single consumer in the country noticing how poorly their energy lifestyles were effected.

The economy has succeeded very well using liquids of all sorts to make up for this but that does not change the fact that overall value of the resource has declined with decades of production of a finite resource. A more expensive production process is my idea of lower macro value

Conversion of liquid hydrocarbons can be thought of nothing but basic chemical engineering. Now you can define "value" in the context of your as yet undefined "best" and easiest", if you want to sew all this together into anything someone outside of your mind can hope to understand.

[AdamB]

That means collapse took place long before "collapsology" was even considered.

Yeah, it was called The Dark Ages. We know.

[REAL Green]

I need YOUR context for these relative words to have any hope as to understanding if you know anything about which you speak, or just say relative and meaningless words on this topic because you haven't thought about any of it for longer than the 5 seconds it takes you to make your original energy claim....a baseless one if you haven't in fact put the most basic empirical on it as I just did.

Please spare me your emotions of wanting so bad to pick apart something. You start looking absurd after your third round. You are not a tough guy you are a wannabe. I have been following both sides for years. Hydrocarbon value is down. Physics tells us it will be. This is issue is quite elementary. You make it into something deep and hidden knowledge of the few as if you are the gifted one. Empirical? LMFAO

The lower "quality" of which you speak isn't because of the change in base hydrocarbons involved, but because of legislatively required blending changes. The output fuel is REQUIRED to be inferior, it wasn't made that way because of a lower quality hydrocarbon input.

No shit Sherlock, how long did it take for you to figure that out. Did you dig deep into your deep empirical mind to argue that point. See the problem with you comment hit men is you try to hard to gotcha and instead get the gotcha

That is the point I am making, yes. Thanks for arriving there so quickly.

DITTO Einstein

I'm not the one claiming "best" and "easiest" as any kind of argument for my point. I do numbers, data analytics, and you know, understanding real live energy flows, use and economics instead.

You don’t use numbers and data. You use emotions. We are talking something so simple and elementary and you are making this into something complex with deep science. What a joke.

I Sure...and "best" to you means what? Stuff you like because you got into collapse, decades after it was supposed to have happened, you missed that in your research and settled on decline as a comfortable replacement after you found out (unlike those of us who knew in that advance) that peak oil was a tale sold to faith based believers who are suckers for that kind of stuff? .

Basically, you are trying to tell me decline is not a valid look at what is going on in the world today? You are saying exploring topics from all angles is not valid? You are right and others wrong. I think you have put a good description on a self-centered self-righteous personality who is more concerned about being op top than being right. Nothing about your comments impresses me. I follow them a little bit. Watching you attack Army is a good example of your personality disorder.

Give that fact more than a seconds worth of thought and explain how it fits into your "best" and "easiest" all being devoured without a single consumer in the country noticing how poorly their energy lifestyles were effected.

There you go with a shallow emotional response instead of the hard physics of lower quality. Consumers don’t know the difference but the EROI shows those who dig deeper that the return on a depleting resource is going down as the best and easiest is used up. How friggin stupid can one be. You get the prize Mr. Adam. LMFAO. This whole discussion is really boring and a waste of my time but I enjoy seeing a hit man shoot himself in the leg and whine while he is bleeding. I have moved on from PO long ago in regards to decline process but it is still very much part of the process. You are obviously stuck in that anti-PO stage of trying over and over to say “I told you so”

Conversion of liquid hydrocarbons can be thought of nothing but basic chemical engineering. Now you can define "value" in the context of your as yet undefined "best" and easiest", if you want to sew all this together into anything someone outside of your mind can hope to understand.

Chemical engineering cost money. It requires a return. It lives in an economy with other systems and networks. If you think best, easiest, and value are the wrong words you just showed how dumb you are. Your effort to take me down just left egg on your face.

[AdamB]

You are not a tough guy you are a wannabe. I have been following both sides for years. Hydrocarbon value is down. Physics tells us it will be.

Says the guy who can't define "easy" or "high". Thanks, but I'll stick with exactly those physics, and grant you the mindless philosophizing best on the topic.

I'm not the one claiming "best" and "easiest" as any kind of argument for my point. I do numbers, data analytics, and you know, understanding real live energy flows, use and economics instead.

You don’t use numbers and data. You use emotions.

It might seem that way to someone who can't explain what they mean when they say "best" and "easiest". I can assure you that those of us who can formulate a quick and accurate well example, versus those that can't, separates the wheat from the chaff quick obviously.

We are talking something so simple and elementary and you are making this into something complex with deep science. What a joke.

I can understand why those without a clue as to the basics of how science work might feel that way,

Nothing about your comments impresses me.

You presume a motive on my part. I've been in this game longer than you have, I am well aware of the psychological characteristics of the audience, their technical limitations, the probability of your inability to even quantify some small example of your own words, and all the rest of it.

There you go with a shallow emotional response instead of the hard physics of lower quality.

Says the guy who can't define "lower". I provided an example, with numbers, so a kindergartener can point here and there, to explain bigger and lower. Please apply your relative concepts to the example provided to demonstrate you know...well....anything.

[REAL Green]

Says the guy who can't define "easy" or "high". Thanks, but I'll stick with exactly those physics, and grant you the mindless philosophizing best on the topic.

Boring. LOL. Is that all you got wise guy? Getting all technical on a really elementary topic makes you look pretty lacking in the grey matter area.

It might seem that way to someone who can't explain what they mean when they say "best" and "easiest". I can assure you that those of us who can formulate a quick and accurate well example, versus those that can't, separates the wheat from the chaff quick obviously.

Then why haven’t you formulated a quick and accurate response? LMFAO. Your problem is you are trying too hard to attack me with a lame and low IQ topic. You haven’t used numbers are science here. You are all emotional because you want so bad to get me. Your low self confidence needs these kinds of perceived victories.

I can understand why those without a clue as to the basics of how science work might feel that way,

Translation: I am very very mad so I will tell him he does not know the basics of science!!!!!!!!!!!

You presume a motive on my part. I've been in this game longer than you have, I am well aware of the psychological characteristics of the audience, their technical limitations, the probability of your inability to even quantify some small example of your own words, and all the rest of it.

LMFAO again, now he is saying he is not only smarter on a lame low IQ topic but has been here longer so that makes him even better. My Gawd, dummy, give it up you are just pissing all over yourself.

Says the guy who can't define "lower". I provided an example, with numbers, so a kindergartener can point here and there, to explain bigger and lower. Please apply your relative concepts to the example provided to demonstrate you know...well....anything.

AH, who said I couldn’t define lower? Where was that talked about and who the frig cares? I am just having fun with a guy who thinks he is so smart but instead looks like a fool. I must be a huge threat to you by the way you are coming after me. VICTORY!

[Ibon]

and now we get to watch two posters demonstrate their talents to debate in a warm humane gracious manner. Have fun guys.