DanG

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by DanG

  1. DanG
    Way to intentionally miss the point. How very lawyerly of you. If there were a lot full of unsold $250,000 Lamborghinis sitting across the street, do you think a billionaire would have more access to them than a minimum wage earner? I don't see how your analogy relates to the current discussion. - Dan G
  2. DanG
    Magnitude of cost is not at argument right now. I still say that cost is one aspect of access. And to respond to your magnitude argument, even $300 a year can be a lot of money for someone making minimum wage. - Dan G
  3. DanG
    Cost is an aspect of access. Would you say you have unfettered access to Lamborghinis? - Dan G
  4. DanG
    If it's treated like the outpatient procedure that it is, I have no problem. Currently, states are closing clinics by claiming it's like open heart surgery. - Dan G
  5. DanG
    Then you, essentially, have insurance. - Dan G
  6. DanG
    How would you like to see a study that shows that climate alarmists are paid more when they write papers that support AGW? You'd love it, and you'd tout is as a first rate piece of evidence to prove your claim. But when billvon posts something that disagrees with your position, you go out of your way to dismiss it. If you really think you're unbiased, you're not being honest with yourself. - Dan G
  7. DanG
    We've been over this 1,000 times here. There's no point in going over it again. People who lean right refuse to believe that the Party of Lincoln is not a direct ancestor of the GOP today. That's fine, but it doesn't change the history. Here's a parable: Guy walks into an antique shop and sees an axe for sale for $10,000. He asks the proprietor why the axe is so expensive. Proprietor: That's Abe Lincoln's axe he used to build his log cabin. Shopper: Wow, it's in really great shape. Proprietor: Yep, I've taken real good care of it. Replaced the head twice, and the handle four times. - Dan G
  8. DanG
    Ya know, in case you're interested in making a factual point. - Dan G
  9. DanG
    Huh? I don't know what you mean. If your point is that the large majority of climate change predictions are being observed, then yeah, I make your point. Otherwise, I think you need to make your point clear. - Dan G
  10. DanG
    Global temperatures are going up. Land ice in Antarctica is melting. Ice extend in the Arctic is reducing. Glaciers everywhere are receding. Ocean levels are rising. CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentration are rising. - Dan G
  11. DanG
    What does that have to do with military budgets? How many Americans have been killed, in America, since 9/11 by Islamic terrorism? Hmm, I haven't seen anything worse than a bunch of people bitching on the internet and talk radio. What unrest are you talking about? If you're referring to crises in Syria, Ukraine, and Iraq, then I agree. We need to be prepared for those things to spill out or affect our interests. What does that have to do with military budgets? I hope you're ready for your taxes to go way, way up. - Dan G
  12. DanG
    Most of them, yes. - Dan G
  13. DanG
    Are you claiming that none of the climate change predictions are coming true? - Dan G
  14. DanG
    Maybe they should be covered under the ADA. That's what I think everyone is looking for, ideas on how to improve the situation. Here are the problems as I see them: 1. Mental illness is stigmatized (socially and legally) to the point that people don't want to seek treatment. 2. Many people with mental illness need treatment. 3. People with certain mental illnesses should not have weapons, fly airplanes, drive trucks, etc., but the current system doesn't distinguish different types of illnesses, it just lumps them all together. Your idea of making mental illness a protected class addresses problem 1. Do you have any ideas on addressing problems 2 and 3? - Dan G
  15. DanG
    Are the difference is? - Dan G
  16. DanG
    Science progresses. Understandings change. When something doesn't fit the predictions, you try to understand why. You don't just throw your hands up and say, "It's all a scam!!!" - Dan G
  17. DanG
    We already do that. The question was, how do you make things better? - Dan G
  18. DanG
    Including these: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies - Dan G
  19. DanG
    Let's start with post #264 of this thread. You never responded to it. - Dan G
  20. DanG
    Marc, every time a piece of data comes out that supports your position that climate change isn't happening, you rush to post it here. But when a report comes out that is counter to your beliefs, you claim it must be the product of manipulated data, peer review fraud, or biased because of politics. Do you truly not see your confirmation bias? It is obvious to everyone else. - Dan G
  21. DanG
    So you're going to hang your hat on "scandals" like the CRU e-mails that, once reviewed independently, were found not to be scandals at all? Even though there's no evidence of manipulation, the fact that you're heard the story many times means it must be true? I guess the old mantra of, "say it enough times, and people will believe it,' is working on you. There is a link upthread to explains the sea ice extent quite well. Have you read it? Some are. I don't think anyone predicted they'd all be dead by now. Do you dispute that the northwest passage is open for a longer time each year? Is that "manipulated data"? None. Who said we'd lose cities to ocean rise by 2014? If you based your arguments in facts, like you want GW believers to do, you'd sound more credible. - Dan G
  22. DanG
    No, that's what's at issue. So far, I haven't seen anything reputable that shows the data has been manipulated with deception in mind. You think you have, but all your links are to fringe websites, and papers like the Washington Times. If the data manipulation is so blatant, it should be easy to show us where a real scientist has reviewed it and found it lacking. - Dan G
  23. DanG
    You should talk with your lawyer. He/she may not be lazy, just smart. I used to be a patent and trademark paralegal. We never filed anything early. I'm not a lawyer, so you can't rely on my advice, but our reasoning was that should your patent end up in a lawsuit, your presumed protection extends back to the filing date, not the date of issue. The protection ends, however, 20 years from the date of issue. In other words, unless not having the patent is holding you up from monetizing your invention, there's no reason to rush the process. To repeat: I'm not a lawyer, and it's been many years since I was in the biz. Go talk to your actual lawyer. - Dan G
  24. DanG
    Not looking for evidence because you know your position is right? That's pretty much the definition of faith. - Dan G
  25. DanG
    Exactly - Dan G