HexHammer wrote:The tard of tards, deraling as always.
What's the matter Hex? You don't know how to spell derailing either? The library computer doesn't have a spellchecker? Looking at that mirror again and calling yourself names. Hey has anyone ever heard Hex say that any person was intelligent? I find it amusing when Hex makes a complete asshole out of himself or a loser. Maybe AMod will change his mind one day and ban or suspend Hex for being such a retarded, naughty boy just like Scott did. Hex the compulsive liar. What shall this slithering snake do next?
PhilX
Now dear tard ..what relevance has correct spelling?
Now dear tard ..what relevance has correct spelling?[/quote]
Intelligence jackass intelligence.
PhilX[/quote]No, you are quite wrong, that's just good memory, not intellect. That's something "Rain Men" are good at, not someone that can think abstract, contrary you.
Now dear tard ..what relevance has correct spelling?
Intelligence jackass intelligence.
PhilX[/quote]No, you are quite wrong, that's just good memory, not intellect. That's something "Rain Men" are good at, not someone that can think abstract, contrary you.[/quote]
You're wrong. Part of intelligence is putting your best foot forward which you haven't done.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:You're wrong. Part of intelligence is putting your best foot forward which you haven't done.
PhilX
I would do it if it had relevance, maybe you could clarify the relevance here in this matter?
Intelligent people would automatically know what I'm talking about.
See ..dodegeing the question, because you are too retarded to answer it, now let's try Again, it's a simple question that you can't answer, but please try!
HexHammer wrote:See ..dodegeing the question, because you are too retarded to answer it, now let's try Again, it's a simple question that you can't answer, but please try!
From lowlifes like you, it's not worth the bother (btw you misspelled dodging).
HexHammer wrote:See ..dodegeing the question, because you are too retarded to answer it, now let's try Again, it's a simple question that you can't answer, but please try!
From lowlifes like you, it's not worth the bother (btw you misspelled dodging).
PhilX
That's because you can't give any intelligent answer, I've asked for an intelligent answer for months from you, but you have never been able to give anything but puerile retarded answers.
HexHammer wrote:See ..dodegeing the question, because you are too retarded to answer it, now let's try Again, it's a simple question that you can't answer, but please try!
From lowlifes like you, it's not worth the bother (btw you misspelled dodging).
PhilX
That's because you can't give any intelligent answer, I've asked for an intelligent answer for months from you, but you have never been able to give anything but puerile retarded answers.
You only speak for yourself, retarded jackass (still looking at that mirror). When you answer my question to my satisfaction, I might answer yours, stupid.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Apparently you can get blood from a stone, but only a jackass would be willing to invent and build the machines necessary to achieve that aim.
Why squeeze a tiny bit of matter out of a whole lot of light (E=mc^2), when there is plenty of matter around in the first place?
Why do we go to the moon, leaving behind a bunch of equipment while bringing back some rocks?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why squeeze a tiny bit of matter out of a whole lot of light (E=mc^2), when there is plenty of matter around in the first place?
This is a perfectly valid question in that it's very hard to see how such a demonstration of a principle could lead to any useful new technology. Why build a new power station to make a cupful of dirt which you could simply dig up out of the ground? However serendipitous discoveries which couldn't have been guessed at are often made when scientists indulge their curiosity with such experiments so in general I approve of geeks who have the balls to think outside the box. I don't expect that laser-generated matter will ever be anything more than an ephemeral particle which exists for a trillionth of a second or so and then disappears, but designing and building the equipment to do it with may well finish up making some plutocrat a few zillion bucks a bit further down the track.
Nowadays physics has little to do with uncovering the nature of reality but much to do with venture capitalists using the technocrats to build new gadgets which nobody ever needs until after they've been invented.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Apparently you can get blood from a stone, but only a jackass would be willing to invent and build the machines necessary to achieve that aim.
Why squeeze a tiny bit of matter out of a whole lot of light (E=mc^2), when there is plenty of matter around in the first place?
Why do we go to the moon, leaving behind a bunch of equipment while bringing back some rocks?
PhilX
"WE"? is that the Royal we? The Americans went to the moon primarily to get there before the Russians, because they decided that landing a man on the Moon was the best way to win the space-race: having been lagging behind all the way up till then. They did not even send a scientist there until the last mission.
In practical terms there is no reason. That is why after over 40 years there are no promised moon bases, no promised space tourism, and no one on Mars.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:You only speak for yourself, retarded jackass (still looking at that mirror). When you answer my question to my satisfaction, I might answer yours, stupid.
PhilX
All this mirror talk, this is still something only children would say, not intelligent adults, only proving how utterly stupid and retarded you are.
Philosophy Explorer wrote:I would just settle for that device from Star Trek that can make food appear (I don't know what they call that device).
In my country we call them waitresses.
LOL.
PhilX
Wait a minute! Didn't the original, and Next generation ships have replicators that would produce whatever food you could name? And didn't both of those and voyager have a cafeteria? What do you need both for? isn't that a bit redundant?
