Search results

People get accused of inciting fake outrage when people incite, and others display, fake outrage. People don't get outraged anymore, they get over-the-top, arms flailing, keyboard banging outraged, and it's mostly all fake. Not unlike the same fake outrage over the infamous Rutgers University...

Some people have been in training a long time for this. Here are but two. Little Dreamer, hard at work. "Look! I'm flying!!!!" Little Cheri - "Are you talking to me? Well are ya, punk?"

It's yer basic baby power. Coating a stick with it is common on boats of all sizes (gas and diesel), as well as home heating oil tanks. Baby powder made with pure corn starch is better, but talc is also fine. It dissolves completely into the fuel and does not harm it in any way. If you use it in...

Your edits didn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny, so they aren't really edits. They were childish vandalism that got erased. Non-vandalism edits without valid sourcing won't stand up, either. Go edit a page with some falsehood, something not to be trusted and not properly or validly...

It's probably that corn bag toss game, where you try to throw bags of corn into a hole, and then later, someone tries to through bags of corn into your hole. And then... no, wait, that's pretty much it. There was actually a movie made about it (IMDB), a mockumentary (Cornhole the Movie...

I have no idea. I would imagine any number of people who read the edit could have. All I know is that it wasn't me, because I never bothered to take the time to click the links to go look at what I (correctly) surmised was childish vandalism to make a childish point. The only reason I'm aware of...

Attacking the source (Wiki) instead of refuting the referenced data in which it contains, is simply yet another example of a logical fallacy. To do so means you must put yourself in the position of having to state (and believe) that everything on every Wiki page is not to be trusted, because...

It means something very specific in the South. I'm hoping it means something very different in Michigan. Otherwise, I ain't showin' up. :eek:

Ironically, many restaurants have, in addition to the wait staff, people known as "expediters" who do pretty much nothing other than take the prepared food from the kitchen to the customer's table. :D Translated to a freight carrier, the wait staff would be the customer service people - those...

Really? I believe just the opposite, that every time someone voices their opinion that society becomes richer, smarter, and more intelligent about itself, and the people can better carve out their importance with in the society.

Not really. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy regardless of how badly the author feels the need to justify it. The last line really doesn't change any of that, other than, perhaps, to make it worse. Well no, it's not contradictory in any way, it's merely hitting harder on the fallacy...

Good for you.

auxiliary battery = spare battery. It's isolated.

Yeah, headhead is going to be between 20-30% generally speaking. And the nature of emergency freight is being in the right place at the right time. If you're not in the right place, then you're gonna have to deadhead more. But, it's the same as always - if the load doesn't pay enough to...

Actually, it's not a "historian's note", meaning a note from an historian, but rather it's a "note to historians", a directive or heads up for historians to note the following information. In addition, while many things at Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt, you need to further...

You mean like the diversion of the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association? Excellent example of what I was just talking about. Why is that, exactly? I mean, since the OP wasn't about it, and the subject of the OP's article didn't originate there, why are we talking about Ron Paul or his Looney...

Of course it is. It's practically a definition example of an ideological agenda. The whole notion of "stolen valor" is purely ideological. It was introduced and passed solely to protect the reputation and meaning of military heroism medals, and greatly broadened the existing law preventing the...

No, of course not. That's why I qualified it with "reasonably" and "at the same level". Isn't that the goal, to be just as safe (or safer) now as we were on 9/10? I think we are. We're actually safer now than we were on 9/10, because on 9/10 we allowed someone to plan and execute the 9/11...

So does anyone have any suggestions on alternatives to spending the money, disrupting our lives, all while remaining reasonably safe and secure at the same level? Ignore it all and hope nothing bad happens really isn't an option. Is it?