Posts made by eobox91103

I'll break my rule for a moment:

@raphjd said in BootieJizz is a fraud:

@eobox91103

BTW, I love that you are keeping up your childish "I'm not talking to you" so you post to others so you can reply to me.

Such profound narcissism! I was replying to the ridiculous fiction that was ignoring facts. Notice that there is another participant in this thread. It is not all about you.

You are so mature.

Good call.

I would make two observations here:

• In a forum thread, posts should be about the topic at hand, not the other posters. There is a pattern, though, of people replying to others with insults and other derogatory comments. If I were writing forum software, I would prevent the word "you" from being used. Casting insults at others instead of discussion is childish.
• The item just above might be a moot, though, as right now the forum is pretty much useless. The clumsy user interface and the chronic log-in problems have reduced traffic to porn requests and conspiracy theorists seeking an echo chamber, with poisonous posts sent to anyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader or his minions. One would think that a Forum Administrator would notice this--and perhaps care about it.

@manhandler said in BootieJizz is a fraud:

@eobox91103 I didn't even get through the second sentence.

Not everything fits into a tweet. There are probably some online resources that can increase one's attention span.

@lololulu19 But the facts are the facts. Buttigieg rode his bicycle for the DOT offices to the White House. His security detail kept his bike and waited for him when he was inside the West Wing. When he left, some grainy video showed him getting his bike back from the security folks, and getting on it to ride back to DOT.

The conspiracy theorists concocted a story about how he faked riding his bike to work, based on that grainy video. That was pure fabrication, and when confronted with the facts, none of its supporters have admitted that they were wrong. The facts in this case have no political leaning. The idiotic conspiracy theory seems localized to nutcake right-wing fringe.

@lololulu19 Ah, classic "whataboutism." This thread is about Secretary Buttigieg riding his bike from DoTransportation to the White House. And he did that.

"Facts" don't have a liberal or conservative bias. If the New York Times says that 1+1=2, they are not inherently wrong.

@lololulu19 Ummmm... No.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pete-buttigieg-bike-suv/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/video-doesnt-show-buttigieg-staging-bike-ride/

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/06/facebook-posts/no-pete-buttigieg-didnt-fake-bike-ride/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/04/pete-buttigiegs-bicycle-stars-latest-rightwing-conspiracy-theory/

@lololulu19 I have uTorrent 3.4.8 (32 bit) on a 64 bit system and it's never given a problem--no crashes, no errors. It uses about 4% of my processor/2% of my memory, and I don't see any other processes running such as "utorrentie." Maybe their newer or beta versions have some added features, but I have no complaints about my current installation.

@bi4smooth said in The left is eating itself.:

So...

• 4" of water in my cup is good! (I know it is!)
• 4" of water in my kids' playground or ball field is bad?
• 4" of water in my living room is bad, too?

I think you're on to something! You are able to see the difference between your cup and your living room. While this might be obvious to many people, there are some who can't tell the difference.
(Note that I did not make a comment about being unimpressed by 4". )
(Note that I just did.)

If only there were people who could explain this to us... someone who knew science...

Oh, but you can't trust those science-ists: In order to do their work, they often use "arithmetic." This can lead people to believe that 81 million votes is more than 74 million votes, or that 306 electors is more than 232 electors. The consequences of that would be for the Dear Leader to move to Florida and no longer have a pulpit. (But fear not, his cult members will continue to worship him. When he leaves this mortal coil, perhaps they will have him embalmed and displayed in a glass case, like Lenin, Mao, and the elder Kims. His family will probably trademark the word "Trumpsicle" and try to get royalties from it to pay off their legal bills.)

@manhandler said in The left is eating itself.:

@eobox91103 It's not difficult information to find:

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

Go to the first reference that this article cites, from GRL. The abstract of that paper states, in part, "The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established."

I'm not familiar with climatecentral.org, so I don't know how much to trust them. I did find, though, an interesting page at https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-flooded-future-global-vulnerability-to-sea-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood. Here's part of what that page says:

Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges. A Climate Central analysis finds the odds of “century” or worse floods occurring by 2030 are on track to double or more, over widespread areas of the U.S.

@manhandler said in The left is eating itself.:

@eobox91103 Well, the result is that vegetation has increased by 14%, and trees by 7%.

I'll ask again: Is there a reference for this? Q-anon tweets don't count.

@eobox91103 I don't see any global warming ... but where is this invisible global warming? I don't see it.

Look at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature. (Warning: The linked webpage contains facts, and presumes that the Earth is spherical and not necessarily at the center of the Universe. This might be distressing to some readers.)

This thread has wandered off to vote-by-mail, masking, and vaccinations (somebody must have sand in his panties), but to tie off the CO2 stuff:

@manhandler said in The left is eating itself.:

@bi4smooth The basic statement by John Kerry that we need to get CO2 to zero...

No; that's not what informed and intelligent people want to do. The goal is to get artificial carbon emissions (from burning fossil fuels) to zero. The plant-animal-atmosphere-ocean carbon cycle was in balance for millions of years before humans started burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, putting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This has thrown the Earth system way out of balance, and thus has led to climate change. Even if we stopped all artificial emissions of carbon today (which nobody has proposed), the surplus of carbon (as CO2) in the atmosphere and ocean would remain for many decades. It's like the "first rule of holes:" The first step to get out of one is to stop digging it deeper.

@manhandler said in The left is eating itself.:

CO2 is actually beneficial to greenery.

Yes, vegetation absorbs CO2, which it converts (along with water and sunlight) into hydrocarbon plant material, and expels oxygen. Animals (such as humans) take in O2, which they convert (along with water) into their own bodily mass, and expel CO2. This has been in balance for millions of years. But over the last century, so much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere that plants can't absorb it. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs sunlight, leading to climate change. I know this sounds complicated--do a web search on "carbon cycle" and perhaps you'll find pages that explain it more clearly.

There is more CO2, so there is more vegetation now by 14+%.

Do you have a source for this? Deforestation is rampant all over the globe.

While one might think that increasing CO2 would help plants, one can't say "if some is good, more is better." See https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2011/02/12/how-plants-could-impact-global-warming/ for a discussion.

@wald3mar said in Had an account for a while, new to the forum:

Hehe I wish that would have been so easy to download porn here lol I can't signup on the site because it says they stopped accepting new members until only the God knows when

There's a way to cash in bonus points to generate an "invitation;" I've got a zillion points and I'd be happy to do that. There used to be a way to send "private messages" so I could send you the link, but I don't think that capability exists now. Maybe some other Gentle User can show me how that's done.

But welcome! There's a lot of stuff in the forum from previous posts that you can find from the main menu.

@flozen said in First Trans Lutheran Bishop:

@eobox91103 Occasionally my brain is incapacitated, and at this moment I'm whiffing on the method to engage you via sending on Messages. Could you send a "test" over, as I know it will allow for a reply.

And as a very brief and tangential return to topic, there's a unique Lutheran church in Midtown NYC you must see on you next visit. The church owned the mega-desirable plot of land, and sold it to Citibank for a gleaming tower, with the stipulation it could construct a church in the basement. The architects did a great job with skylights that allow you to peer down or up, as the case might be.

The congregation was not particularly friendly at my one and only service, requested for my mom's visit, lol.

I don't know how one sends messages any more: It used to be (if I recall correctly) that clicking on a person's name would bring up a profile page that had a "send message" button. That doesn't seem to be there any more...or if it's there, it's very well disguised. Perhaps someone reading this knows the secret. It would be unfortunate if gt.ru made a conscious decision to eliminate private messages.

@flozen Thanks for providing that link. While it's difficult to summarise a denomination's teaching in few Twitter-esque boxes, that chart does a fairly good job. It's ironic that the items in the Missouri Synod column line up quite closely with those of the Roman Catholic Church--given that the origins of the Lutheran movement were a reformation/rebellion against Rome. The Church of England's teachings were originally virtually identical to those of Rome (except for the role of the Pope), and now the descendants of the C of E in North America are quite similar to the ELCA. (Henry VIII did not like that "L word.")

I agree that the term "evangelical" has a frightening dimension to it, because it's been co-opted by right-wing groups very intolerant of anyone outside their white middle/upper-middle class bubble. (I call their mega-churches "Jesus factories.") The "E" in ELCA is rooted in the word's original meaning (from the Greek euangelion or "good news," the origin of the English word "gospel."). It's good that they haven't abandoned the word just because it has been corrupted by others.

My pastor friend is quite straight (there really are such people), and happily married. I'm not sure I'd say he was "hot" from a homoerotic perspective, but he's a super nice guy, which is perhaps the ultimate in hotness.

You identified yourself as an atheist; I would call myself a non-theist, meaning that I don't address the question of the existence of a God because, in brief, the question isn't important to me. I see that as slightly different from being agnostic, but that's a dissertation for another time. My family has generations of anchoring in the Anglican tradition, and I'm comfortable with being part of a community of tradition, culture, inclusion, and social action. I remember hearing a priest in the (US) Episcopal church saying that his denomination was founded on the twin pillars of "the gospel and good taste." One out of two isn't bad. (That's probably less precise than another speaker who said that the church was based on scripture, tradition, and reason, forming a three-legged stool. She used the word "stool" over and over again, which became somewhat distracting.) But, as is often the case, I digress.

@flozen My roommate while an undergraduate came from a long line of Lutheran pastors (and he's one now), and I kept track of the ELCA/MS re-arrangement sometime back. It's not unlike more conservative Anglican groups splitting off from their national church, but claiming to be still Anglicans because they've put themselves under the jurisdiction of a homophobic bishop in Nigeria or some such place.

I think the ELCA and the Episcopal Church in the US have a "full intercommunion" agreement, or some such thing. I remember visiting an Episcopal parish in Connecticut several years ago whose (interim) rector/pastor was an ordained Lutheran. I've heard Episcopal writers speak of their church "pitching a big tent" (giggle, giggle) where a diversity of viewpoints is accepted. There are those who insist, though, that (a) they are right, and (b) everyone else needs to agree with them or they're wrong. (This attitude is not confined to religion.) If I were a bible-thumper, I would mention Mark 9:38, but I'm not, so I won't.

@flozen Interesting news; I had missed that. (I'm Anglican Church of Canada/Episcopal Church, depending on which country I'm in.) The Episcopal Church is very inclusive of LGBT people, whether as members or in leadership. ACC has been on a slower timetable, but is still ahead of many other national bodies within the Anglican Communion.

And yes, the forums are a dreadful slog right now...I'm sure the "posts per day" metrics have fallen off drastically. I hope these are birth pangs and not a "new normal." I'm not sure why there was a change; things seemed fine before. But I digress.

@bi4smooth said in Do you pee in the shower at your own home?:

1. Urine is not sterile (that's a common fallacy)

One could even argue that urine is fertile : It has a lot of nitrogen and phosporus, and can be a good garden fertiliser if diluted with water at a 15:1 ratio. Depending on one's diet, urine can also have a good deal of salt, so don't make it the only source of water for the garden.

@chanelkokoro I appreciate your careful response to my post. I think we probably agree on a lot more things than we disagree on, but it's the differences that make for good discussion. It's nice to have that discussion by addressing issues rather than by calling names. There are people on here who need to learn that.

And you're right, I don't live in the US (although I'm there right now). I do spend a lot of time there (here) and thus try to be informed on US issues, but I'd probably dig into them more deeply if I were a full-time resident.

@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1 :

We have to define where life begins. Science has defined it as viability. Because if you define life at the potentiality for life such as at conception that rabbit hole never ends. That means by the time you get that dick up there is a 3rd person in that room. have you ever condemned yourself for all the lives you've killed cumming in your toilet?

but then, why do conservatives claim to be pro life, but anti birth control and anti sex education that would lead to less abortions? how do y'all claim to be pro life and then try to gut and defund the programs that would help sustain that life? make it make sense.

"Viability" is a tricky concept: As medical science improves, smaller and smaller fetuses could be considered viable. But there could also be an argument (which I don't think anybody has made) that a child isn't "viable" until age 8 or 10, given that for some period of many years, s/he is dependent on other humans to provide food, shelter, etc. The young of other species (I'm thinking of turtles and fish, and likely others) are abandoned when hatched, so they are by definition viable at birth. I don't know the way out of this mess.

As for birth control and sex education, the conservatives' view on that baffles me. If conservatives don't want women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, why don't they seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place? Quite illogical on their part.

@chanelkokoro I will continue to be optimistic that things will get better for Americans in the coming years. I can understand the expediency of dropping the minimum wage from the COVID relief package, in order to get the needs passed. It remains to be seen whether the $15 plan will resurface. I do think it's a bit odd to have minimum wage on a national level, as there's considerable difference in the cost of living in different parts of the US. There's even a large difference in cost of living within individual states. I don't know what the right solution is here.

Healthcare policy seems to be a mess in the US. I think many people want universal health care, but there are different ways of going about it. Mr Sanders was strong on advocating this, but rather on short on details, which left him open to criticism. Ms Warren had a more detailed plan, but I don't think many read it. People want simple solutions to complex problems--which would be nice--but it rarely works that way.

I will remain optimistic. There are 330 million people who deserve better than what they're getting.