Missing Birds? Here's Why

[RobertEarl]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fukushima-disaster-taking-a-toll-on-birds/

CBS News, Apr 16, 2015: Near site of Fukushima disaster, birds still in peril… birds are becoming a rarity around the damaged nuclear site… “There are dramatic reductions in the number of birds”… Mousseau told CBS News. “In terms of barn swallows in Fukushima, there had been hundreds if not thousands in many of these towns where we were working. Now we are seeing a few dozen of them left. It’s just an enormous decline.”…

Around Fukushima, Mousseau predicts the worst may not be over… “So now we see this really striking drop-off in numbers of birds as well as numbers of species of birds. So both the biodiversity and the abundance are showing dramatic impacts in these areas with higher radiation levels, even as the levels are declining.” Mousseau said the reason comes down to the long-term impact of the radiation. “It takes multiple generations for the effects of mutations to be expressed…”

**************************

My thoughts:
Bodies are filters. Radiation comes in and gets trapped in the fibers of the body just like particles get trapped in a water filter.

Barn swallows are at an even a higher risk than other birds since they build their nest out of mud.

I used to see swallows all the time. Haven't seen many in the last year. Did see more than a few abandoned nests.

[napi21]

1. Does this really surprise anyone?

I'm surprised there's any living things in that area.

[RobertEarl]

75. It's not looking good for Japan

I am surprised at the reactions in this thread, tho. Of course there are three posters who I have not replied to as they are on the iggy list due to it being fruitless to even try to have a discussion with.

Having said that, I can only hope people will become a bit more informed about what Fukushima means around the world. There being much denial about Fukushima by the media, it is through forums like this that information can reach those who need to know.

The government of Japan has put a lock down on reports coming from their country, so that tells us something about how bad it is, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

2. You live near Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

3. No. I live in the US

Been a birder for 30 years. Ever since Chernobyl the number of birds has plummeted. Audubon's - the premier bird watchers society - records confirm that.

Nuclear is bad news for birds. Bad, bad news.

[beam me up scottie]

4. But you think your swallows were affected by the radiation from Fukushima?

The article I read seems to be referring to the birds around the site.

[RobertEarl]

5. Radiation from all nuclear

Radioactive materials accumulate in a body same as particles get trapped in a water filter.

The US got a nasty dose of radioactive materials after Fukushima blew sky-high. Then there is the WIPP mistake, and each time a nuclear power plant is refueled it releases radioactivity. It's adding up in the environment and birds are being killed.

[beam me up scottie]

6. But you cited an article that doesn't confirm your theory.

Is there any evidence that your birds are being affected by radiation from Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

7. Yes

The US got a nasty dose of radiation from Fukushima; and radiation kills.

That's evidence.

It's like pesticide. You spray pesticides in a bird's habitat and birds die.

Not only swallows, but all bird populations have been plummeting. And bugs, too. We won't even mention sea stars, eh? Or all that other sea life on the Pacific coast.

For more info read the ENEnews.com website. But be careful... it's not good news.

[beam me up scottie]

8. No, that's not evidence.

We have many more starlings at the farm this year, does that mean Fukushima's radiation benefited that species?

[RobertEarl]

10. What farm?

How many starlings did you have last year and how many this year?

The evidence from the OP report is evidence that radiation is killing birds. Specifically swallows and soon enough the proof that birds around the world are being killed by radiation will become quite evident.

Of course this is awful news for the nuke industry. Just awful. Nobody likes to see birds killed. So the industry would try to keep such news from the public, wouldn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

12. "The evidence from the OP report is evidence that radiation is killing birds"

Yes it is, it's just not evidence that it's killing your birds.

You're going to have to do better than that.

[RobertEarl]

15. Just wait, it's coming.

Ever see anyone die from smoking a cigarette? No?

But smoking kills, yes? Same with radiation. It doesn't kill right off, at the doses the birds have endured, but everyday they end up breathing and eating more. And radiation accumulates since it lasts so long. 30 year half life for cesium, which means it is in the environment for 300 years. Poor little birds don't deserve what we have done.

[beam me up scottie]

17. I love birds.

I also love science.

Please don't do to science what Fukushima's radiation is doing to its birds.

[RobertEarl]

18. This is science

The science is in the OP. And we have radiation all over the US. In fact, in some places radiation counts are 6 times higher than before Fukushima.

[beam me up scottie]

20. There is science in the op, true.

But you're doing unspeakable things to it to further an agenda.

Creationists do the same thing with fossils.

[RobertEarl]

21. Birder for 30 years

Science is an attempt to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course.

Nuclear power is not a safe course. There is ample proof of that.

[Kali]

26. maybe they are eating too much melted starfish

[LeftyMom]

9. Do you have a citation from a birding or ornithological organization for this claim?

I'm not much of a birder but I know people who write for birding publications and people who lead tours professionally and people on listing committees and this is news to me.

[Major Nikon]

28. Results...

On Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Radiation from all nuclear
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6563829

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

conspiracy theory claptrap. ToS states Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:39 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In short, you take your chances. Well, your chances are slim that this frivilous alert will net you a hide. Bad alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't come across as conspiracy woo.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This was a waste of an alert. Please allow me to disagree with the tone of this alert, and please leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I totally agree that it is kooky talk of the highest order, I think it is better to get it out there and let it be torn apart than to hide it and give the false impression that there is some kind of cover-up. Leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: RE's nuttiness seems to be mostly his own invention rather than any organized promotion of dipshit crazy talk. So while RE's latest spewage is definitely at least a half-bubble off plumb, I say give him a soapbox and let him continue to discredit himself. It seems harmless enough and hiding it would deprive onlookers of a good belly laugh.

[RobertEarl]

40. Wow. Just wow. SMH. n/t

[sabrina 1]

45. Lol, that was the funniest alert I've ever seen on DU!

Someone doesn't want us to talk about birds now on DU!

[NuclearDem]

46. ...

I await the Mehmet Oz take on this!

[RobertEarl]

48. My fan club is funny.

I am not amused.

[sabrina 1]

51. You're in good company!

Fukishima is an ongoing terrible tragedy. I find nothing amusing about it.

There is no accounting for what causes amusement for people though, is there?

[Kali]

54. you know, over the last few days I have seen you embrace a number of whack jobs

I tend to agree with much of what you post as your opinion and perspective, but the people you latch onto to...I am sorry but your credibility has really taken a hit.

(I realize you could care less as I am not an important person here in any way but I just felt the need to express my observation)

[sabrina 1]

56. Here's how I view things. There are issues that are extremely important to the American people.

I am not overly concerned about what people who support depriving the American people of rights think about my standing up for anyone who takes a stand on those issues, and will continue to do so regardless of the few people who make a practice out of TRYING to intimidate Democrats from doing so.

I respect people who disagree with me, IF they make an argument from their POV. I have zero respect for people who clearly have an agenda that is opposed to the best interests of this country imo, and who attempt to distract from issues using every silly antic they can. Talk about credibility.

They have zero impact on me.

If you are referring to my OP on GMOs and the attempt to silence Dr Oz for using his microphone to take a stand to join the majority of the American people 90% of whom want their food labeled, I wonder why anyone would find that offensive unless THEY have an agenda.

I am glad to see that THIS attack completely backfired. I hear a lot of talk about pragmatism on this forum, mainly from people who use those very tactics when Pragatism is actually needed.

To me, it is pragmatic to support those who speak up against Monsanto, Walmart and unless that person has been in jail for FRAUD, who has a large following which I don't have, access to the media, which we don't have, I will support them especially when it exposes the frauds who lie to us on a regular basis.

Thank you for your opinion, at least you stated it respectfully, which the anti Oz (and I know little about him other than he appears to have supporters and opposers) did not, which means their antics meant nothing to me.

[MoonRiver]

55. Guess everybody has a special pet peeve.

Still,

[sabrina 1]

57. That's for sure. For some it appears to be that if someone on the internet has an

opinion they don't like, THEY MUST BE SILENCED!!

I remember felling like that, when I was 3 years old. Didn't work, even throwing a few tantrums, failed! Thankfully!

[MoonRiver]

68. For me it was my newborn baby sister! And yep, didn't work.

[snooper2]

177. Juror #7 ROFLMAO

Thanks whoever you are LOL

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Jury results.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:39 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In short, you take your chances. Well, your chances are slim that this frivilous alert will net you a hide. Bad alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't come across as conspiracy woo.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This was a waste of an alert. Please allow me to disagree with the tone of this alert, and please leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I totally agree that it is kooky talk of the highest order, I think it is better to get it out there and let it be torn apart than to hide it and give the false impression that there is some kind of cover-up. Leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: RE's nuttiness seems to be mostly his own invention rather than any organized promotion of dipshit crazy talk. So while RE's latest spewage is definitely at least a half-bubble off plumb, I say give him a soapbox and let him continue to discredit himself. It seems harmless enough and hiding it would deprive onlookers of a good belly laugh.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[zappaman]

35. "The US got a nasty dose of radioactive materials after Fukushima blew sky-high."

I love when you make stuff up.
Truly.

[sabrina 1]

96. Could you write an OP on this subject yourself? I'd be very happy to go read it

and comment. Are you a scientist, an expert on this subject or something? I never see you write anything yourself, but would love to read something from you in an OP of your own sometime.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. EPA: "no harmful levels of radiation reaching the U.S. from Japan "

June 30 Statement

In response to the Japanese nuclear incident, EPA accelerated and increased sampling frequency and analysis to confirm that there were no harmful levels of radiation reaching the U.S. from Japan and to inform the public about any level of radiation detected. After a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels, on May 3, 2011, EPA returned to the routine RadNet sampling and analysis process for precipitation, drinking water and milk. As always, our 24/7 air monitoring stations continue to measure radiation levels, alerting scientists to even slight changes.

It is important to note that all of the radiation levels detected by RadNet monitors and sampling have been very low, well below any level of public health concern. Across the RadNet system, we saw decreasing radiation levels during April and May. Since May, sample analyses have predominantly shown no detections of radionuclides associated with the Japanese nuclear incident. EPA continues to work with federal partners to monitor the situation in Japan and stands prepared to accelerate radiation sampling and analysis if the need arises. Data will continue to be available on EPA's public website.

EPA's nationwide radiation monitoring system, RadNet, detects radiation in two ways: air monitoring and sample analysis.

Air Monitoring: More than 100 air monitors measure radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This system allows our scientists to keep very close watch over radiation levels at all times. This system lets us identify normal background radiation levels in an area. The air monitoring system alerts us if radiation levels increase outside of this normal range, allowing us to take action if necessary.

http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/

RobertEarl makes shit up about Fukushima. That's why he was blocked from the Environment and Energy group; the anti-nuclear hosts suspected he was a plant, trying to make the anti-nuclear case look bad by talking complete rubbish.

[sabrina 1]

104. That's one source, and you were doing fine until your last paragraph. I eg, have read other

sources that contradict this one.

But that's what discussion is about. To my knowledge no one here knows anything about this subject so we can only go by what we are told. Yet I see people act like they are experts but contributing nothing to convince me.

And why does it matter so much to them what other people think? If they have a cogent argument to make, make it. But so far all I see are personal attacks. And all that does is give more credibility to the OP.

So as I suggested, let them write their own OPs and then we can go there and assess what they have to say in a rational, adult manner and maybe someone might learn something.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. You should not think "everyone says RobertEarl is wrong, therefore he is more credible"

That would be a very contrarian way of evaluating someone. RobertEarl is a laughing-stock on DU because of his repeated posts of nonsense about Fukushima - starfish, claims it's heating the ocean by Japan and so on. Many people, both pro- and anti-nuclear, have patiently debunked his claims, and he responds with "so what, I really care about this topic".

What sources tell you the US got a big dose of radiation? The EPA is pretty authoritative on the subject. You say "to my knowledge no one here knows anything about this subject"; I say that, to my knowledge - and surely to yours too - the EPA does now a lot about this subject. It's their job to.

[sabrina 1]

111. 'People who talk about people' and all that. That is the opinion of a very small and rapidly

gaining a not too great reputation on DU, group of people who so far, seem to have nothing of substance to say.

I have asked them to write their own OPs to put their views before the forum.

You and this small group talk about people a lot. That contributes zero to this discussion. And you just did it again.

In my experience, people are confident that their opinions are based on solid facts never stoop to the level of smearing people who have different opinions, they engage them and share their information because the goal should be to EDUCATE.

The EPA may or may not be right. Government agencies have been wrong in the past. Eg, offshore drilling. we were told, 18 days before the disaster in the Gulf, by the President, that we were behind the times to want to keep the ban on offshore drilling in place. He stated that Oil Rigs were much, much safer now with all the new technology we 'out of touch' people were not aware of.

Fine I didn't know if he and the experts he referenced were right or wrong. I hoped they were right. But 18 days later they were proven to be spectacularly and tragically wrong.

People are human, no matter how well intentioned they are and no Government agency should taken at its word without question.

I'm sure, eg, the President was certain that Oil Rigs were safe due to the info he received from the experts.

So people discuss these things, taking everything into consideration, including the opinions of Govt agencies.

But sincere people do not bash other people simply because they have different opinions.

So, going by what I'm seeing in this thread, the OP has far more credibility, whether that is true or not, than those who are using personal attacks and silly childish games, than they do.

That's just the way it works. YOU, have at least provided something of substance, too bad you included a personal attack though. It wasn't necessary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. And, so far, you have not provided anything of substance

You have given us no clue about the scientific papers you read that said the USA received a heavy dose of radiation from Fukushima (they were papers, weren't they? Not just an assertion on the internet from a pseudonym, or from a blogger?)

People have already, in this thread, demonstrated the problem with RobertEarl's idea: the radiation received in Fukushima has nothing to do with the radiation received in the USA. And the swallows in Fukushima have nothing to do with the swallows in the USA. So his anecdote that he personally hasn't seen swallows has nothing at all to do with Fukushima or radiation.

It's silly to say he has 'more credibility' than the people pointing out the flaws in his claim. What you are going on, in the end, is the 'truthiness' that you feel he has. I suspect that's because he is the one spreading the most gloom and fear about Fukushima, and since what happened there was bad, you're just thinking "the person who says it was really, really bad most be the one with the truth".

When you've read so many OPs by RobertEarl that contain non sequiturs, basic mistakes in science, and a refusal to even attempt to calculate anything, you'll understand that people will bring up his track record of nonsense when he produces another dud.

[sabrina 1]

117. I don't have anything of substance to add. And I'm not into bashing Democrats so I

guess those who are trying to stop the discussion, succeeded in derailing the thread.

I was hoping to read substantive responses where I could learn something about it.

Instead I saw the same now familiar group do their same boring act in the thread offering nothing but personal insults.

Why don't you ask THEM who seem to want to APPEAR to be experts, I made no such claim, to post something worth reading?

It's revealing that you admonish me for pointing out that they are providing nothing, yet you had nothing to say to them.

I at least made a suggestion to them, post their own OPs so we can learn what they know and then discuss what they write. But they don't seem to want to put themselves on the line so, here we are, learning nothing.

I am not a scientist nor did I claim to be. So not sure what your point is.

[RobertEarl]

120. Laughing stock on DU?

WTF?

No one has honestly debated me on this issue and come out on the high side. The reason is that this is an ongoing and unprecedented situation of which the science of it is being discovered on a daily basis.

You, mv, should cease and desist with the personal attacks and instead devote yourself to uncovering what environmental damages the nuke industry is causing. They are the real enemy, not I.

[RobertEarl]

122. Eh?

MV claims:
""RobertEarl makes shit up about Fukushima. That's why he was blocked from the Environment and Energy group; the anti-nuclear hosts suspected he was a plant, trying to make the anti-nuclear case look bad by talking complete rubbish.""

All you have is personal attacks? And false attacks at that. The reason why I was banned from E&E forum was because I refused one host's request to ignore another poster, who in the time since was herself banned from that backwater forum for her desire to have nuclear protestors killed.

Furthermore, the assertion that the hosts are anti-nuclear is false.

It is posters such as yourself who do my bidding by exposing pro-nuke arguments as false and who will attack us anti-nukes by making up personal attacks in order to protect the industry. I thank you.

[NickB79]

88. "The US got a nasty dose of radioactive materials after Fukushima blew sky-high."

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes ...

... in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land? Perchance a flock flew eastward by mistake?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail (sort of ... - and the relation of Fukushima swallows to the ones where RE lives is about as relevant as migrating coconuts)

[beam me up scottie]

123. Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!!

Monty Python, thank you, muriel, it's perfect for repressed DU conspiracy theorists!

[RobertEarl]

125. Question scottie

Are you pro-nuclear?

[beam me up scottie]

130. RobertEarl, I've got nothing against you.

I think you honestly believe the things you post and I respect your right to believe. I'm a little worried about you because you seem to see dangerous radiation everywhere and that in itself is unhealthy.

Let's just leave it at that.

[RobertEarl]

165. Eh?

I ask a simple question and you totally avoid it. Good summary of your conversational style, eh? Again: Are you pro-nuke?

Then you go onto to say that I see dangerous radiation everywhere.
Which just goes to show you don't get it. Radiation can't be seen.

Birds can be seen, and as a birder for 30 years, I have seen that the numbers of birds has dramatically declined ever since 1990, which was four years after Chernobyl. Had you done any search to find and understand the science about Chernobyl's radiation like I have, you wouldn't be making such downright weird arguments like you have here. Instead you'd be thanking me for bringing this situation to DU's attention.

It's called science, you should read your sig line for a clue, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

166. If I thought it was worth my time I would discuss this with you.

But since your assertion that Fukushima's radiation is killing off your birds was such a spectacular failure, it's obviously futile.



Carry on.

[beam me up scottie]

167. Why send me cryptic pms, RobertEarl?

RobertEarl

Heh

Do not reply to this.

You have shown your worth on my Radiation kills thread and you don't seem the slightest embarrassed.

I've prefer to air our differences in public, if you don't mind.

I'm not embarrassed. Are you?

[RobertEarl]

168. Thanks for all the kicks

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Lots of people got to read about the science of radiation killing birds. More so than I ever thought would when I started this thread. A thread on which you have posted and kicked about 20 times. Good work!! Thanks!!! I owe you!!!

[cleanhippie]

172. You keep using that word, "science". It doesn't mean what you think it does.

Your opinions, your assertions, and your proclamations, based upon a blog post or conspiracy website that you've read is NOT "science." You have presented zero "scientific evidence" in this thread to support your outrageous claims.


Please, do us all a favor, and stop using the word "science". Psuedo-science, woo, or quackery would all be better and more accurate words.

[RobertEarl]

182. You are joking, right?

Bird populations are in steep decline and the science of radiation and its spread across the world is an apt explanation for the decline.

You have a better explanation? Or are you just a pro-nuke person?

[cleanhippie]

184. And your response of more irrrlevant stats and personal attacks butress my point.

There's only one joke here, Mr. Earl, and everyone reading this thread knows who it is.

[RobertEarl]

185. Asking if you are pro-nuke is a personal attack?

And then you reply with a personal attack?

Except for that I don't see your point.

[cleanhippie]

186. You be as obtuse as you need to be.

It appears that you use that tactic to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but it does hinder rational discourse.

Until you figure that out, I'm out.

You have a nice day.

[NM_Birder]

179. were they unladen swallows ? and what WAS thier air speed velocity ?

With enough radioactive fallout,............... even coconuts migrate.

[beam me up scottie]

183. !

[snooper2]

175. I thought the cats ate them all?

[arcane1]

11. I live in San Francisco and my local birds remain as abundant as ever.

So far so good!

[Cleita]

13. You live about 200 miles north of El Diablo. I hope this nuke plant

gets decommissioned before we have an event but everyone around here thinks it's just fine and no danger because PG & E says so.

[sabrina 1]

119. I hope for that also. The fact is, they don't seem to able to control it, and that should

concern everyone, especially the people who are most likely to be affected by it.

[LeftyMom]

14. Garlic fries must neutralize radiation.

The eighth inning gulls are innumerable.

[RobertEarl]

16. City birds are doing better

The mass of the buildings soaks up radiation and people feeding birds helps.

Runoff from rain is carried away in sewers so there are less resident rads in an urban environment as compared to the wild.

[Kali]

27. ...

[zappaman]

36. Forget it. He's rolling.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Please define "the mass of the buildings".

Mortar? Brick? Wood?

Your post circles around on itself and eats its own tail.

The mass of the buildings soaks up radiation, but the runoff is carries the radioactivity away? So do we have radioactive buildings? Is the radioactivity of the sewers killing the rats that live there?

Too funny.

[RobertEarl]

47. Funny? No

Streets where deposition occurs are not habitat for many birds. Nor are roofs.
Certainly not for swallows.

[MineralMan]

59. That's your belief? Really?

Supported by what, or are you just posting some conjecture you came up with? I didn't know you were a scientist, actually.

[RobertEarl]

61. Sure

So what does it mean, to you, MM, to be a scientist?

[snooper2]

178. ROFLMAO please keep them coming!

[hunter]

19. I think the swallows in my neighborhood fear the ravens most of all.

Ravens gotta eat too.

The greatest changes I've seen here in California are attributable to warm weather and drought. Blame it on greenhouse gasses and climate change. "Fossil fuel" stuff. The tide pools I knew as a kid in Southern California are migrating north, just as I did.

If some catastrophe cracks open the reactors at Diablo Canyon I might change my mind, but for now the fracking fossil fuels are my more immediate concern. That crap gets in water, and railroad cars and mid-twentieth century gas pipelines explode.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion

I've met Helen Caldicott up close and personal, and was within touching distance when Jerry Brown declared "No more Nukes!" well, after Diablo Canyon was a done deal, anyways...

[AtomicKitten]

22. Coming soon to a theater near you: BIRDZILLA

[beam me up scottie]

24. I saw one of those in the barn the other day.

It was trying to eat our gelding.

Shooed it away with a broom.

[SidDithers]

42. Amazingly, I watched was watching Rodan last night...

It was in Ghidorah, The Three-Headed Monster

Godzilla, Mothra and Rodan have to team up to defeat King Ghidorah

I grew up on Saturday afternoon monster movies. Now, I've got my son watching them.



Sid

[beam me up scottie]

62. Me too!

Spent many a snowy Saturday afternoon watching Shock Theater. Our parents would kick us outside if the weather was good but we'd sneak over to a friend's house and watch it in their camper.

Good to hear you're raising another fan!

[AtomicKitten]

72. My son has been a big fan since he was really little.

It's the longest running movie franchise since 1954.

He seems a like a personable critter.

[a la izquierda]

23. They must all live in my neighborhood...

in Morgantown, WV.

[RobertEarl]

25. Did you see any over the winter?

Last edited Sun Apr 26, 2015, 01:36 PM - Edit history (2)

I didn't see any swallows at all this winter.

On edit: This of course was a trick question to see if la poster knew the difference between a swallow and a sparrow.

On second edit: Following this post are several repiles from posters I have on ignore, so that's that.

[Kali]

31. is this some kind of performance art?

http://birdnote.org/show/where-swallows-go-winter

[Major Nikon]

33. Unintentionally I think

Which makes it all the better

[Kali]

53. did you see the edit?

it was on purpose to test us

[Major Nikon]

58. That's pure genius right there

I love his posts, especially on the weekends.

[Major Nikon]

32. Most swallows migrate great distances

They are mainly bug eaters and follow the population south when insect populations collapse in many areas during the winter. Thus the idiom, one swallow doesn't make a summer.

I saw thousands of them under the waterway bridges last summer, just as I have for many years and I'm quite sure I'll see thousands more in the same areas this summer.

[RobertEarl]

50. Yes they do

Winter in S. America.

I have seen clouds of swallows in migration. An amazing sight. So it was with great interest that I noticed the lack of the beautiful and formerly abundant specie in my area the last few years. And now the science presented in the OP does offer a suggestion as to why there are fewer and fewer birds spotted.

[Bonobo]

37. I think maybe they went back to Capistrano.

&index=7&list=PLE6E96533BEBEDC40

[MineralMan]

60. I don't know where you live, but in most areas

swallows aren't around in the winter. They are migratory birds. I grew up in southern California, and even there, we saw no swallows until spring. So, your not seeing swallows in the winter is not data of any kind.

[Bonobo]

30. "found that the numbers continue to decline over time - even as the radiation threat drops."

Yup, exactly what you would suspect if radiation was NOT the explanation as well.

[RobertEarl]

65. You did not quote it exactly

Here is the correct quote:

"So both the biodiversity and the abundance are showing dramatic impacts in these areas with higher radiation levels, even as the levels are declining.” Mousseau said..."

The levels of radiation are declining some, but levels are still above the pre-Fukushima levels, and yet the birds' numbers are still declining.

Because the effects or radiation are long lasting and the levels are still high.

Glad to clear that up. Some might be confused by the miss-quoting by you Bonobo?

[JVS]

34. After we bombed the moon the birds became depressed and stopped reproducing.

[NickB79]

87. It threw their menstrual cycles out of whack

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. I've already gone through about 30 lbs of nyger seed and 5 gallons of hummingbird juice.

Sometimes I look out the window to see 10-15 Finches at EACH of my feeders at the same time. I've counted at least 12 different hummingbirds fighing for their spot at my HBird feeders (I don't think I've ever encountered a more territorial animal).

Yeah... no.

[hobbit709]

41. You mean the negative entropy radiation affects avians too and not just echinoderms?

[SidDithers]

43. Science. Yer doin' it wrong...nt

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

63. Tree lobsters...

[SidDithers]

66. "Intellectual assault with intent to duncify"...

So very, very appropriate in any of the OP's Fukushima threads.

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

67. What are you talking about?

It's appropriate in a lot of threads.

Anti-vaxxers, Dr. Oz solidarity threads, killer bras...

[sabrina 1]

76. Nicely done, an actual demonstration of 'assault with intent to duncify'

[Kali]

74. !

[beam me up scottie]

77. One of my favourites.

I hadn't posted it here in a while.

[sabrina 1]

118. Do you know anything about the topic of the OP you could contribute? Some of us come to

DU to learn things, but the group you find so amusing for whatever reason, doesn't seem to know much so their contributions leave us with the impression that the OP is correct.

Is the OP correct?

I know nothing about the issue, I'm not a scientist but I'm not learning anything from the group in the thread. So why do you find that amusing?

[Kali]

127. yes I do know a bit about some of the statements made in the OP

is the OP correct? about what? not that I can see.

yes it seems you have a bit of a lack of a scientific background or understanding. the group you are complaining about isn't really participating here in this thread to educate you. they (we) are having a bit of fun with the recurring and apparently intentional ignorance displayed. the time for attempts to educate/convey real information/explain errors is LONG past. I rarely venture out of the Lounge and even I have noticed the lack of logic or scientific understanding and the persistence of trying promote a whacky agenda. it almost appears as satire or and attempt to make real anti-nuke activists look like idiots.

there is a difference between casual observation and data, and there is a difference between raw data and a scientific conclusion. these essential steps are utterly missing from the things I have seen this individual post. to then read his "explanation" for the critical error of not knowing about swallow migration (much less physics, biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography, climate, weather, and much of any other physical science) to be an intentional "test" of his audience is the utmost in blatant disingenuousness. it all goes back to credibility.

there is a difference between being open minded and being gullible.

[Octafish]

49. Thanks for pissing off the right posters.

"Right" being the operative term.

[RobertEarl]

52. Certainly not my intent to piss off anyone

But it happens.

As a birder for 30 years it has become a great concern of mine as to why the numbers of birds I was fortunate to enjoy studying has decreased so rapidly in the last few years.

[sabrina 1]

78. You have joined the most respected club on DU now.

It's become a badge of honor here to share this fan club with so many other great DUers.

I found your OP very interesting. We are too far away to be impacted, but in the North East we always had Blue Jays, eg. But last year and the year before we didn't see even one.

I don't know if this is temporary, but it's the first time that I remember not seeing any Blue Jays.

I hope they come back, we have every kind of bird here. Cardinals are still around.

Thanks for the OP. I appreciate people who contribute something to DU.

[RobertEarl]

112. That's the problem

We are not too far away to be impacted.

The long life of the material, the elemental toxicity of the material and the transport mechanisms of the material via air and sea currents and the fact we are down wind of Japan, has caused the US to be radiated. In some places the background radiation has increased sixfold.

Even the EPA has admitted that the US was dosed. I call it a nasty dose, other terms may better apply.

I fear the worst for our birds and am only attempting to speak for them and other voiceless creatures.

[zappaman]

64. lol!

Good one!
BTW, I know people at the Comedy Store. Come visit and I'll get you a showcase!

[Octafish]

71. Seriously: Secret Service didn't like African Americans in 1963. Ask Agent Abraham Bolden.

Former U.S. Secret Service Agent Abraham BOLDEN was the first African American Secret Service agent to serve in the White House, personally appointed and literally hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy to the White House detail. Agent Abraham Bolden reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president," quoting fellow Secret Service agents on the JFK detail.

In addition to enduring all manner of personal indignities, he was concerned at the lack of professionalism in those assigned to protect the president and reported his concerns. He was told, "OK. Thanks" by his superiors. When the problems weren't addressed, Bolden requested transfer back to the Secret Service office in Chicago.



Abraham Bolden speaks at JFK Lancer.



The story of a man who told the truth:

After 45 Years, a Civil Rights Hero Waits for Justice

Thom Hartmann
June 12, 2009 11:52 AM

A great miscarriage of justice has kept most Americas from learning about a Civil Rights pioneer who worked with President John F. Kennedy. But there is finally a way for citizens to not only right that wrong, but bring closure to the most tragic chapter of American presidential history.

After an outstanding career in law enforcement, Abraham Bolden was appointed by JFK to be the first African American presidential Secret Service agent, where he served with distinction. He was part of the Secret Service effort that prevented JFK's assassination in Chicago, three weeks before Dallas. But Bolden was framed by the Mafia and arrested on the very day he went to Washington to tell the Warren Commission staff about the Chicago attempt against JFK.

Bolden was sentenced to six years in prison, despite glaring problems with his prosecution. His arrest resulted from accusations by two criminals Bolden had sent to prison. In Bolden's first trial, an apparently biased judge told the jury that Bolden was guilty, even before they began their deliberations. Though granted a new trial because of that, the same problematic judge was assigned to oversee Bolden's second trial, which resulted in his conviction. Later, the main witness against Bolden admitted committing perjury against him. A key member of the prosecution even took the fifth when asked about the perjury. Yet Bolden's appeals were denied, and he had to serve hard time in prison, and today is considered a convicted felon.

After the release of four million pages of JFK assassination files in the 1990s, it became clear that Bolden -- and the official secrecy surrounding the Chicago attempt against JFK -- were due to National Security concerns about Cuba, that were unknown to Bolden, the press, Congress, and the public not just in 1963, but for the next four decades.

SNIP...

Abraham Bolden paid a heavy price for trying to tell the truth about events involving the man he was sworn to protect -- JFK -- that became mired in National Security concerns. Bolden still lives in Chicago, and has never given up trying to clear his name.

Will Abraham Bolden live to finally see the justice so long denied to him?

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/after-45-years-a-civil-ri_b_213834.html

After the assassination, he went to Washington on his own dime and reported what he saw to the Warren Commission. For his trouble -- and despite an exemplary record as a Brinks detective, Illinois State Trooper, and Secret Service agent -- Bolden was framed by the government using a paid informant's admitted perjury and spent a long time in prison. The government also drugged him and put him into psychiatric hospitals.His real crime was telling the truth.

Americans know the Truth: the country hasn't been the same since Nov. 22, 1963. President Kennedy kept the nation out of Vietnam and started toward the moon. Imagine what the New Frontier could have become for us today? Certainly would not be a time where "money trumps peace."

Why do you find that funny, zappaman?

[zappaman]

79. What I found funny was your smear of DUers.

You know, calling them "right" as in "right wingers"?
Oh...you were serious?
Smear away then.

[Octafish]

84. You sound like anti-zappaman, zappaman.

Is that a smear, pointing that out?

[zappaman]

99. Smear away, Octafish of DU.

Smear away...

[sabrina 1]

113. Seriously, why don't you write your own OPs on the topics you seem to want people

not to talk about? Or accuse them of being wrong. IF they are wrong, and that's possible, then correct them in your own OP where more people will get to see it. Here people just skip over personal attacks and probably end up deciding the OP is right.

I would be more than happy to rec one of them and keep it kicked for you. So far I don't recall ever having that opportunity.

[Major Nikon]

69. You two make a great pair

You should go on the road together.

[Octafish]

70. Yeah. People might learn something.

Here's something from 2004 on BCCI, what Robert Gates and Poppy Bush called the "Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" and related matters with echoes from Dealey Plaza to the present day, 11 long, war-filled years later:



[font color="blue"]Nguyen Hand Bank, the P-2 lodge and Banco Ambrosiano, BCCI, the S&L "failures" and more: the thread through all the scandals is the hand-in-glove financial relationship of Intelligence Agencies, organized crime and terrorist proxies. As one financial corruption is exposed, another begins, and the players remain the same, as do the crimes: money-laundering, drug-smuggling, assassination and staged terrorist acts. [/font color]

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2118878

DUers were unafraid to get their fingernails dirty, lifting up that rock -- 2004, before the Great Bankster Bailout of '08. Nostalgia.

Ask: What have people learned from reading Major Nikon?

Compare.

[Major Nikon]

73. I actually prefer your truther and crop circles material

But you should be commended for working in JFK and Bush on this one. Nice touch.

[sabrina 1]

81. A majority of DUers agree with Octafish. It must be hard being in the minority

for those who don't like to discuss actual issues. Did you know that out in the RL the topics that some people try to suppress on DU, are discussed all the time, freely, so it makes DU look weird to see a few people trying to stop people from discussing what is widely discussed in the RW.

And as polls show, more and more people each year are more and more skeptical of what the government tells them?

IS there some reason, btw, that it bothers you what a majority of the people support? Why do you care? I don't care what you the minority wants to talk about or thinks. That's their business. I never got the attempts to control what other people think, it just can't be done for one thing, so it's an enormous waste of time.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Sure they do.

That's why they created a special group just for them.

Where the majority can discuss their theories away from those who try to "suppress" them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[Octafish]

90. Show where I'm wrong, beam me up scottie. I'll admit my mistake.

Go through my posts and journals on DU3 or DU2 and show where I'm wrong.

Otherwise, it's just your word on what I post being "theory." No offense, your word doesn't mean all that much to me.

[beam me up scottie]

121. Not interested in your Greatest Hits, Octafish.

I've read enough of your stuff to know better than to follow you down your rabbit hole.

[RobertEarl]

124. You should pay attention to Octafish

You may learn something.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Oh, I used to.

And I learned a lot.

About Octafish.

[Octafish]

150. You sound like a police man.

Very authoritative, in a condescending way.

FWIW: To be honest, I never thought much of what you wrote, but I never criticized you for it. If we disagree on something, great, that happens. When you make it personal, though, I think another agenda is at play.

[beam me up scottie]

152. Ouch.

I'm hurt. I wish I was cool like you.




Criticize away, I never thought much of conspiracy theorists, it seems like a silly hobby.

Sure does make one popular with the right crowd, though.

Am I pissing off the right posters yet?

[Octafish]

149. Good on you!

While I feel it's a conservative position, it must feel good to know all you need to know.

[Major Nikon]

158. Sometimes he comes up with some really good ones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026563744#post153

[beam me up scottie]

161. "Crop Circles. UFOs. Other Dimensions. Edge of Reality stuff" ?

I can understand why someone like Octafish would think that wanting to "shut down" discussion of those fantasies, er, topics is "un-democratic".

But it's what Skinner wants.

Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

[Major Nikon]

162. Shut it down? Hell, I'm yanking his chain

You can't get a ride like this at Disneyworld.

[beam me up scottie]

163. But he wants to believe he's being silenced!

I swear, the only thing paranoid conspiracy theorists love more than a new truther blog post is claiming they're being oppressed on DU.

Stop not oppressing him!

[FBaggins]

133. No... you won't

You've claimed this multiple times and been shown multiple errors...

I have yet to see you admit your mistakes.

[Octafish]

148. Because I've asked you?

No offense, but you ridicule me and other posters for mentioning Fukushima.

"Dishonest... as usual" -- FBaggins

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014854902#post22

Who's being honest?

[FBaggins]

156. You have in fact... and then you ran away

Since then you just dodge by pretending that bothering with it is beneath you.

No offense, but you ridicule me and other posters for mentioning Fukushima.

I most certainly do not. I "ridicule" (not what I'm doing) you for making things up about Fukushima. There are plenty of legitimate concerns to talk about with Fukushima/Tepco without pretending that robots melt upon entering the buildings, the pacific ocean has heated up due to Fukushima, Starfish are melting and now birds in NC are dying off... all due to Fukushima.

Stay on the correct side of the line dividing 99% of DU from the lunatic fringe and you won't find much "ridicule".

Who's being honest?

On that thread? Not you. You there continue to defend your claim that the strawman you built for Tepco is their actual position.

So let's see... are you now claiming that if "beam me up scotty" points out that you claimed that the unit 3 fuel pool exploded sending spent fuel into the air... then you'll admit you were wrong? Just not if I tell you? Or points out that you've claimed that tons of cesium and plutonium were released? Or your claim that just a few atoms of plutonium was a deadly dose?

It's just when I point it out that you won't admit mistakes?

Got it.

[Major Nikon]

83. I actually prefer your Dr Oz material

Just sayin'

[sabrina 1]

93. Good because I'm following that story closely. Seems there's way more to it and I hear

they are tracing the beginning of the assaults back to where they began. Certain bloggers eg, are under scrutiny now, which is good. So stay tuned.

Monsanto is getting sloppy with their shills. People watchiing where I was stood up and cheered when they were thoroughly exposed on that show. THAT's what we need more of.

The people need to know who these right wing think tanks and their internet tools are so their nasty smear campaigns can be assessed by knowing who the sources are.

Is there anything you have written btw, an OP or something, I could go look at so I could pay YOU a compliment also?

Mostly I see you doing this kind of thing, trying to tear down other people who do contribute interesting material. .Note the word 'trying'. Why don't you just write an OP of your own and tell us your opinions like most DUers do in your own thread. I would be happy read it but I have never seen anything like from you.

Octafish's contributions are well resourced, interesting and excellently written. Makes it worth while to come here.

Btw you are off topic in this thread by a mile. People want to talk about the subject of the OP so please stay on topic. Write your own OP if you have something to say and stop using other people's work for your own reasons, whatever they are.

[Major Nikon]

95. You sound very defensive

Was there something wrong with quoting the totally liberal Dr. Oz, who is undoubtedly an expert on topics related to science?

[sabrina 1]

106. Why don't you write some OPs of your own? Are you worried that people might not agree with

you? I never worry about that. So long as the OP is well sourced such as my GMO/Oz was. Spectacular takedown of Monsanto shills on his show btw.

You sound very defensive to me. As if you are trying to stop people from expressing their opinions on subjects such as the one in this OP. Why is it so frightening to you if people talk about things you don't think they should talk about? You can't do that anyhow, so all the waste of time trying?

I don't care much about other people's opinion of me, certainly not on the internet.

Write on OP on this topic, that is the best way to change minds, to present a good, well sourced argument in your own OP.

So far I see nothing to change my mind, so the OP is ahead since there is nothing to counter his POV in this thread so far.

Looking forward to your OP. Maybe you do have something that would counter his pov.

[Major Nikon]

107. You are doing a great job cheerleading the totally liberal and expert on all things science, Dr Oz

Why would I want to steal your thunder?

[sabrina 1]

116. I will support anyone who represents 90% of the American people's right to Labels

on their food products. If you have a problem with that, can't help you. '

But you didn't answer my question, why not write your own OPs instead of having your comments get lost in other people's threads?

Is there anything to gain from NOT writing your own OPs?

Let the community decide if you are right or wrong, that's what discussion forums are for. As I said, I will be respectful and might even agree with you, should you write an OP of your own, on this topic eg. But I see nothing to agree or disagree in your comments here.

'People who talk people' are boring, to be honest.

I see the NYT is defending Oz now. Nice going Monsanto!

Thought you might want an update on that story since you got off topic and brought it up.

[Major Nikon]

129. Well I support 100% of the American people's right to labels

Because such is enumerated in the food code. But I'll be damned if I can find where it says people have the "right" to know how an ingredient is produced. Perhaps you can help me out here, but somehow I doubt it.

And thanks for the update. It's nice to see your totally liberal hero is finally getting the respect and admiration he so richly deserves.

[sabrina 1]

134. So why don't you write an OP about your pov, representing the 10%

who don't want the rest of us to know what we are being fed? Other DUers post about their povs, why don't you, no one is listening to you being angry in other people's threads, but if you post your own, then people will discuss YOUR pov.

I'm very pleased that Monsanto made such a disastrous mistake by attacking a popular, over million viewers, TV personality, because now millions more people know what they are up to.

This is a major victory for the majority of Americans. So thanks, I'm glad to see so much attention now focused on our rights, thanks to them choosing Dr. Oz as a target. I have to say it was terrible strategy, I hope they aren't paying too much money to whoever thought it up. It's made Oz more popular than ever. Talk about failure!

[Major Nikon]

135. So how did your OP go?

My favorite part is where you castigated people for supporting a Republican(who never did), and then in the same breath claimed the Republican Dr Oz was a "liberal".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026550737#post24

Most people would have been quite embarrassed about that shit, but it didn't seem to bother you at all, which kinda makes it all the more hilarious.

[sabrina 1]

136. It went great, better than I expected, thousands of views, way more Recs than subjects like that

get and loads of emails from people who were grateful to see something other than the usual name calling when people post FACTUAL information.

It began a turnaround actually, which wasn't my intention since I never had much interest in the subject. Now lots of people are rethinking what they've seeing here, so yes, it went great.

I will be following the story and updating as more information is available. There are a few 'quacks' out there apparently who are responsible for the smears against Oz who have now drawn the attention of a lot of people who have the ability to expose them. Like who has been funding this campaign.

Thank btw, for all your help in keeping it visible.

So back to your OPs, have you ever posted any OPs on DU? I don't remember any which is why I'm asking.

[zappaman]

137. It sure did!

Tell us more about the "liberal doctor Oz"!
Why not start an OP showing us how liberal he is!

[sabrina 1]

141. So, are you going to write some OPs of your own?

You didn't answer. HAVE you ever written anything we take a look at? I don't recall any.

I loved that thread, thought it would sink like a rock with one or two recs when I posted it.

Over 40 recs! Greatest page, but most of all thousands of views. That's all I ever ask for when I post an OP, that people read it. And from my emails, they certainly did. I probably shouldn't say this as it might be upsetting to you, but my email correspondence wasn't very kind to the group you travel from thread to thread with. Me, I am grateful for the kicks.

Looking forward to your OPs so I can participate in a discussion of YOUR views rather than meeting you in other people's threads saying nothing relevant to the topic of the OP. Why are you unwilling to post your own OPs? I'll rec your OP and will definitely stick to the topic.

[Major Nikon]

139. So you mean FACTUAL information like how Dr Oz(R) is a "liberal"

And now anyone who "smears" Dr Oz(R) is a quack?

You can't make shit up this funny. Well, maybe YOU can.

[sabrina 1]

142. He is liberal on many issues that concern Democrats. Which is why the First lady

felt comfortable to push her views, which he agrees with, on healthy diets and exercise for Americans. Is she wrong to have appeared on his show, not just once btw?

She clearly disagrees with you. But then maybe you don't think she is right to help him push for healthy dietary habits for Americans?

Here, just so you don't keep repeating that silly nonsense that there's no such thing as a Liberal Republican. I'm doing this to save you any more embarrasmen:

Rockefeller/Liberal/Moderate Republicans

They supported some regulation of business and many New Deal-style social programs . A critical element was their support for labor unions

Now, could you get to the topic of this thread and stop violating the TOS of this forum by dragging stuff from other threads from thread to thread?

Have you written anything we could read about the topic of this OP? So far I have no clue what information you have on the topic.

[Major Nikon]

143. Please continue

This is good.

[sabrina 1]

145. Nothing to say? Lol, I didn't think so. Just do us a favor and post some OPs of your own.

I really want to comment in one of your OPs on Fukishima eg, on GMOs and all the other topics you seem unusually interested in, yet say nothing about.

Slamming those who do the work doesn't give you much credibility. You have to do your own work, to gain that credibility.

Childish drive bys, by five or so people, travelling from thread to thread as a group, all dropping the same silly comments, do you really think anyone is listening to you?

Just post some OPs so we can judge YOUR positions on the issues. THAT'S how you get people to listen.

Is there a reason why you are afraid to do that? Don't be, it's a lot of fun.

[Major Nikon]

146. You're doing a great job on your own

Please continue.

[sabrina 1]

147. I know that, thank you. No point in asking you to give us something of substance

anymore, but don't say you were not given an opportunity to do so.

[Major Nikon]

151. I'm well aware of my opportunities and I take advantage of them when I want

I don't take my marching orders from you. I'll post where I like, how I like, and when I like, the same as you. If you don't like it, don't say you weren't given the opportunity to go piss up a rope.

Cheers!

[zappaman]

138. Why do you have a problem with the "liberal Dr. Oz"?

[Major Nikon]

140. Must be the chemtrails

[zappaman]

144. Or the crop circles. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

164. Hey, I found Dr. Oz, right here on DU!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6572767

[Orrex]

98. What is your evidence that the majority of DUers agree with Octafish?

You assert it with such confidence that it must either be a statement of faith or a statement for which you have strong evidence.

If it's a statement of faith, well, you must realize that it's not very persuasive.

If it's supported by evidence, I look forward to seeing that evidence.

Like a lot of other anti-science types, you're fond of making assertions and then requiring others to disprove them. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you're making the positive claim, then you need to be able to support it.


Can't wait!

[sabrina 1]

100. The evidence is in the fact that we never see much of interest from this

small group that goes from thread to thread attempting to tear down those who make DU worth visiting. I have suggested they write their own OPs. I rarely see them do that.

But the people whose threads they seem so upset by, are very popular on DU, they contribute material that attract viewers and members to the site.

Why don't they post their own OPs? Eg, I keep meeting the same few people in other people's threads and I rarely see anything of interest from them.

If I go look for some of their work, there is nothing much there.

So, why not start writing their POVs in their own OPs so we can see how DU feels about their opinions?

Are they afraid? They shouldn't be. Most of us know how to disagree without personally attacking other DUers.

[Orrex]

103. You're aware that that's not actually evidence in support of your claim, right?

You claim that the majority of DUers agree with Octafish, and as evidence you offer your observation that a small group of DUers consistently disagrees with him.

Also, your use of "Original Posts" as a metric of correctness is dubious at best, suggesting that you identify "correctness" as a mutable and subjective property. Although I admit that that's consistent with pseudoscience, it doesn't really hold up.

So, why not start writing their POVs in their own OPs so we can see how DU feels about their opinions?

Why do you equate popularity with correctness? That's a rather dangerous standard to uphold.


In short, I look forward to your evidence that the majority of DUers agree with Octafish.

[Major Nikon]

108. I have an equally reliable test which directly contradicts that claim

[Orrex]

109. Why don't you post that as an OP?

Otherwise it has no merit or validity.

[Major Nikon]

110. I can't argue with that kind of logic

[RobertEarl]

115. Are you kidding?

Octafish is among the most popular and well respected of all DUers.

What he brings to DU is invaluable and important, keeping us informed and educated. I would imagine fox news and other conservatives hate his presence and would do or say anything to keep him from posting?

[Major Nikon]

132. To you I'm sure he is

But coming from someone who blames Fukushima for the lack of swallows in the winter, I'm not sure if that's an endorsement I'd want.

And no, I'm not kidding.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. For further reading see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[beam me up scottie]

128. "Why do you equate popularity with correctness? "

Good question. This is high school, isn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

126. "Most of us know how to disagree without personally attacking other DUers."

WHY DOES SID HATE MICHELLE OBAMA???

[Octafish]

85. Please, show where I'm wrong. Otherwise, all you got is ad hominem.

Seeing how my real name is different than Octafish, like I give a shit about ad hominem.

[Major Nikon]

86. Please, show where I said you were wrong.

Why so defensive? Sounds like you have a guilty conscience about your truther and crop circle material.

I'm starting to have doubts now.

[Octafish]

89. So calling me a "truther" is your way of saying I tell the truth.

As I try, right you are.

[Major Nikon]

91. I'm glad you finally agree

Now can we please have more crop circle material?

[Octafish]

92. A threatening condescension makes you almost sound profound.

Here's part of the reason why I find the subject fascinating:



The circle is a coded representation of pi to the 10th significant figure

Most complex crop circle ever discovered in British fields

By Richard Savill
The Telegraph (UK)
Last Updated: 12:40PM BST 17/06/2008

The most complex, "mind-boggling" crop circle ever to be seen in Britain has been discovered in a barley field in Wiltshire.

The circle is a coded representation of pi to the 10th significant figure
The formation, measuring 150ft in diameter, is apparently a coded image representing the first 10 digits, 3.141592654, of pi.

It is has appeared in a field near Barbury Castle, an iron-age hill fort above Wroughton, Wilts, and has been described by astrophysicists as "mind-boggling".

Michael Reed, an astrophysicist, said: "The tenth digit has even been correctly rounded up. The little dot near the centre is the decimal point.

Article continuesadvertisement
"The code is based on 10 angular segments with the radial jumps being the indicator of each segment.

"Starting at the centre and counting the number of one-tenth segments in each section contained by the change in radius clearly shows the values of the first 10 digits in the value of pi."

CONTINUED...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2144652/Most-complex-crop-circle-ever-discovered-in-British-fields.html

PS: I don't recall reading where you added anything to the discussion about crop circles, Major Nikon.

[Major Nikon]

94. Wow, that sounds a lot like ad hominem

Do I have to comment in order to be a fan?

If so, color me impressed by your fascinating crop circle material, and please post this kind of stuff anytime you get in the mood. I'll look for your posts in the CS group.

[Octafish]

153. You misunderstood on purpose then. The facts are there are more to reality than we know.

Crop Circles. UFOs. Other Dimensions. Edge of Reality stuff that scares the Air Force and other members of the armed forces around the world. GOOGLE Frederick Valentich, Felix Moncla and Robert Wilson, or Thomas Mantell for example of brave people who have lost their lives in connection with UFOs.

You help shut down their discussion by ridiculing those who are interested in them. Doing so is un-democratic, Major Nikon.

[Major Nikon]

154. It's probably the chemtrails

I've been leaving my windows open lately.

BTW, how many hours do you have as a pilot? You sound very knowledgeable about these issues.

[Orrex]

170. You know, I had three anomalous sightings of darning eggs last Wednesday

Unnerving, I can tell you.

If only I had an expert to consult about edge of Reality stuff that scares the Air Force and other members of the armed forces around the world.

[Major Nikon]

171. Are you sure they weren't just butt plugs?

I spent 10 years active and guard in the USAF. I don't remember ever being afraid of UFOs, but I'm sure I must have been and the military did a memory wipe on me when I went in for my exit physical.

[Orrex]

173. Pretty sure, given the context, but thanks for asking!

Actually, they implanted a posthypnotic suggesting during your entry physical, and they activated it when you left, thereby "correcting" your memory.

[Major Nikon]

174. I knew I couldn't trust those bastards!

[Orrex]

176. NOW SHUT UP BEFORE YOU GET US BOTH KILLED!!!!!1!

[snooper2]

180. Did you know Hitler Loves the Ancient Aliens Guy Too?

Hitler Watches Ancient Aliens

[sabrina 1]

80. That would be awesome, and I know for sure a majority of DUers would join them.

Count me in, I like people who take about issues.

People who talk about people, well you know what they say about them.

Octafish's posts here for years have brought people TO this site, I am one of them and so many more.

How many people do you think are here because of those who do nothing but talk about other DUers?

That drives people away. Luckily we have people like Octafish and a few others who keep the site going.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

155. And I thought this post was going to be about feral cats

So is there anything we can do about the radiation? Seems like the genie's already out of the bottle.

[Rex]

157. It's like you blew a dogwhistle or something!

My my...look at all the wasted keystrokes in this thread! People are simply...amazing...

[FBaggins]

159. That's apparently his ongoing purpose

[Rex]

160. Oh my!

[snooper2]

181. It's called Trowling

[JEB]

169. TEPCO and the Nuke industry have proven themselves

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

to be liars and propagandists. That is who I feel like attacking, not somebody trying to keep the topic alive for discussion.