AlexL

Gus Van Horn's comment is about pros and cons of back-up-to-park. It does not follow from it that Gus "cannot drive a car". Changing the subject to Ayn Rand is sneaky. Your comment: is not morally neutral. I did not draw board moderator and owner's attention over the comment you are citing ("Someday, in a month or so [...]"). It was over a different comment.

Oh, your initial comment - about "Ayn Rand couldn't drive a car" - was in fact about ME not being able to drive a car! OK.😁

I am challenging the relevance of your post for the topics' subject. But maybe you simply don't know what the hint at "lynching Negroes" means? Then read this.

Instead, she adored lynching negroes😁

With some context: "their intellectual betters" means also poor, also whites, but who are hardworking and less frequently racist. Ayn Rand's detractors love taking her words out of context, while knowing that in her writings every word is important.

I'll let them decide this. You may assume whatever you wish.

I let them determine if and what they would considered relevant. But I don't really believe that there will be a reaction: OO seems to be fully on autopilot... @DavidV @dream_weaver

On whatever grounds they will find relevant.

Do the moderators, the owners @dream_weaver @DavidVhave something to say to this?

I did, don't worry. I don't suspect you of objectivity and I expect nothing from you. I merely noted your misconceived militancy - your support and endorsement of SA's pro-Hamas "arguments".

Obviously you did not post this in order to inform the readers about the SA's arguments. You posted it because you support and endorse them, otherwise you would have posted Israel's (counter)arguments too...

Both ways !!! 🤣🤣🤣

If this is for me, please specify, for ex. by linking/replying to a comment of mine. If this was indeed for me, please repost, but keep it brief and to the point.

No, it was you irrational way of arguing that disgusted me. And is was not about the present thread/subject: I specified previously what thread/subject was it about:

Go away☹ Take @whYNOT with you and say hello to @dream_weaver for me.

Why can't you answer my question if you don't know what I mean by "a" ?

How is this similar to my question? My question was: can you please show - based solely on his [Ben-Gvir's] words - why this man's arguments mean specifically "ethnic cleansing". (I also gave you Wiki's definition of ethnic cleansing.) My question is in no way similar to yours above. Are you trying to dodge by getting insolent, taking advantage of the lack of moderation by @dream_weaver on this forum?

I asked you a clarification about a claim of yours. Providing a clarification it is not charity, is a mandatory element of a rational debate. But I can understand why you refuse to do it. But don't worry, the moderation here @dream_weaver doesn't enforce this, as showed in @whYNOT's case in a Ukraine thread.

My comment was about your prophecy that the 31 Abrams tanks will never arrive in Ukraine. Although this did not follow from the context of your prophecy, were you implicitly counting on the Russian military competence for the delivery to fail?

Still no comment on this comment of mine... Did you just want to vent?

🤣🤣🤣 Well, they did. All of them: All 31 Abrams Tanks in Ukraine, US Military Confirms to VOA (16 Oct 2023)

Paranoia?

But are you still interested? Should I continue? PS: Please link your answer to my post (by quoting it) so that I am notified that you posted an answer.

Do you mean that something can be 'proved' theoretically, or was 'obviously' meant as a double entendre so to speak ? 1. First about "obviously" The obviousness of the fact that "it was not proved theoretically that superconductivity at normal temperatures and pressures is NOT possible" results from: - simply looking at the Wiki's article on Superconductivity and verifying that no such theory is mentioned, - and also from the fact that the search for superconductive materials at normal temperatures and pressures is quite intense. If there were an (established) theory claiming this is NOT possible, the search would have been only marginal, or inexistent. Here is a parallel with another, a somewhat simpler domain in physics: the claim that the speed of light is the upper limit of possible velocities for physical entities. This claim is both an observational fact and the result of a theory (the Special Theory of Relativity). SR is an extremely well established theory, in the sense that it, and its consequences, is/are confirmed by literally billions of experiments (millions per day from particle accelerators). The fact that there is a very well established theory proving the impossibility of superluminal objects is the reason that the search for superluminal objects is only marginal, extremely marginal. Before the SR and its confirmation the search was quite intense. 2. Now the second point, "Do you mean that something can be 'proved' theoretically?" If the context is mathematics, than it is the case: something can be proved theoretically and is done all the time. But our context is physics, a science about nature. The previous point suggests that it is also the case in physics, but only mutatis mutandis, that is taking into account that physics deals with real objects, whose properties have yet to be established (vs. artificial constructs with fully given a priory properties, as in math). Do you have questions at this (intermediary) point? (Note for me: theory vs hypothesis, scientific theory)

Does this refer to something I wrote? If it does, what exactly do you dispute?