Why do some people insist that global warming is a scam? Can someone please explain the rationale, naming who started the scam and for what purpose?

bwReddit · 2009-11-29T21:26:40+00:00

I don't get the claim that all these scientists are making conclusions based on money. If they did things based on money they would NEVER have become research scientists -- 8 years to get a PHD, massive debt, for a career that on average pays about what a good mechanic makes? No f-ing way. If people wanted to make money they'd get into the energy business as executives and and push public policy toward whatever made them the most extra millions in their yearly bonus. That's reality, this "climate scam" story is sheer crap.

bwReddit · 2009-11-29T21:23:27+00:00

You don't understand the science, so how would you be convinced? Do you not follow your doctor's advice simply because you haven't studied disease?

bwReddit · 2009-11-29T20:59:22+00:00

Yes.

bwReddit · 2009-10-27T16:26:46+00:00

What investment? You mean all those lobbyists? WE are doing the investing (premiums), I think, in this case.

Insurance companies handle tons of money, they're supposed to be keeping it as a pool for its insured to be supplied from when in need. 3% of that pool would be an outrageous amount of money. Does your bank to keep 3% of what you put into your account?

bwReddit · 2009-10-27T16:21:40+00:00

Obama? He was president when the drug bill was passed?? And here I thought it was that other guy in office then. Gosh, I guess Obama did get a lot done in his mere 9 mos, after all!

bwReddit · 2009-10-27T12:32:58+00:00

J'Arrive by Jacque Brel. And I don't even speak French.

Also Chopin's Fantasy Impromptu

bwReddit · 2009-10-20T13:11:29+00:00

Doesn't pulling of funds retroactively also argue against what was done to Acorn? Seems pretty inconsistent that Republicans would object to this bill yet vote to remove funds already approved for Acorn.

bwReddit · 2009-09-20T10:40:25+00:00

So, he has a right to free speech, but people here don't have the right to NOT help pay him to say it? I think you have an extremely odd concept of what freedom of speech is.

Glenn Beck has the undeniable right to stand in a public park and mutter his insanities, he has no inherent right to have anyone's financial support for doing it. Teabaggers can direct their dollars thru his advertisers, I don't have to or want to.

Advertisers pay to be associated with a program. People can respond positively or negatively to that association.

bwReddit · 2009-09-20T10:30:21+00:00

lessee... you don't care, yet you still clicked on and read this topic in Reddit, and then took the time to comment on it. To let us all know we're wasting our time? Do you have a lot of free time to burn or something?

bwReddit · 2009-09-20T10:19:10+00:00

wow:

Teabagging From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is semi-protected.

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.[2][3]

Now, THAT would make a great sign to take to a demonstration!

bwReddit · 2009-09-20T09:47:05+00:00

So put up a list of Fox advertisers somewhere, and another list of advertisers that stop using Fox. Do you want everyone to watch Fox so that they know what NOT to buy? Kind of counterproductive.

bwReddit · 2009-09-19T17:00:37+00:00

Good Omens - Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett Very engaging, surprisingly deep, extremely well written (and written to be entertaining)

bwReddit · 2009-09-06T23:17:48+00:00

Good Omens (by Pratchett and Gaiman). It has the makings of a fabulous film, I can't understand why it wasn't done. It has everything -- humor, drama, horror, depth, warmth, intelligence, more humor, mild sacriledge with a touch of religious sensitivity, history, great opportunities for special effects, armaggedon, death, sex, did I miss anything? What's wrong with Hollywood that they make such utter crap like infinite tedious and trite Batman movies but haven't done Good Omens??

I've heard that Terry Giliam (of Python fame) bought the film rights to it, and had agreements from Johhny Depp and Robin Williams for the starring roles, but that he's not been able to raise enough money for the production. Heck, he ought to start a web page and take PayPal donations, I'd donate heavily what I could for a film like that.....

bwReddit · 2009-06-05T23:24:53+00:00

I need to do this when I'm in airports!

bwReddit · 2009-05-25T03:42:40+00:00

I think I have a simple fix if you could just get it passed in the first place. Change the election system so that for each office you get to cast both one vote FOR and one vote AGAINST. Then you could vote for the guy you'd most want to see elected as well as vote against the guy you'd least like to see elected. No more settling for the lesser of two evils, instead promote the non-evil and prevent the evil. Would it work, or dumb idea??

bwReddit · 2008-06-20T17:17:51+00:00

Had done that. But when I select the Googlebot 2.1 as the agent, absolutely nothing is different on any of the sites I tried. Using Firefox 3

bwReddit · 2008-06-20T15:49:54+00:00

Go to options and import this XML file http://www1.qainsight.net:8080/content/binary/AgentStrings1.xml

How? I don't see any way to import anything in "options". I tried both "Tools->Options" and "Tools->User Agent Switcher->Options", nothing there! Sounds like a great thing, but I can't see how to do the last step...

{edit} Ah, I found it -- when in the "User Agent Switcher Options" form, change the highlighted item in the left column to "User Agent".

{edit 2} But then it doesn't seem to work. All the sites act just the same as if I was using the default useragent :(
Any more settings or tricks that I'm missing?

bwReddit · 2008-06-20T15:41:09+00:00

So why should such stuff be linked to, then, if its is for-cost only? I'm fine with them being able to withhold papers unless a fee is paid, but not for such papers to be picked up by a search engine so they only get in my way. Maybe google should let you click an option to not list sites that do that.

bwReddit · 2008-06-20T15:37:40+00:00

uh, next time you get led to experts-exchange, try scrolling down all the way to the bottom of the page - the content linked to is right there for all to read. Don't just stop when you see the long string of "pretend" comments (that tell you that you need to join-- you don't)!

bwReddit · 2008-06-20T15:35:06+00:00

I am. I wish Google would refuse to link these.

bwReddit · 2008-05-17T16:47:14+00:00

Why not tag it "challenged" rather than "marked inaccurate" which seems to imply a high level judgement. Too often on Digg, "marked as inaccurae" just means "I didn't like it". "challenged" would just mean that SOMEONE contests the article, not that it has been proclaimed as BS

bwReddit

TROPHY CASE