goverment controled weather

snort

It's hell when you run up against someone that calls you on your technical statements, isn't it? I don't blame you for switching over to your new tack, though. Why don't you post some more mis-statements that demonstrate your lack of technical comprehension?

1. Most 2025 citers mention the holographic whatever.
2. IIB cited 2025.
3. Therefore, IIB is/will cite the holographic whatever.
Can you tell which logical fallacy you did here?

Ok, quote them... PLEASE!





Why would I have to know the exact specifics of the physical side of the technology to demonstrate that they have intent and appear to be working towards this objective? In light of my "overall argument", this is as big as any "ad hominem" attack I ever performed. And, the difference is my "attacks" are warranted (meaning they dont quite qualify as attacks, or they weren't actually attacks, but you percieved them as such), while your attacks and inflamatory talk started from the get.



Did you ever think that maybe i got sick of playing games with your pompous and fallacious rhetoric, that has sidestepped everything possible at every point possible?

You may not think that you're a spook, but you're performing the same function as one, and you have been since the very begining.

BTW, you and your Northrup buddies should find great interest in my video that you keep avoiding but keep arguing with me as if I'm just another joe with the same old view and same old arguents. Tell the northrup guys thanks for the clips, i couldn't have finished it so well without them. Also, wish them luck in raking in the dough from the establishments technoligically driven imperial wars (it's not like they need luck for that, but hey).

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I'm really enjoying watching you melt down here.

Please, keep going.

Dont pat yourself on the back. I usually always hastily post and then make several typo + content edits just afterwards. it's a bad habit. You can see "edited by IIB" in almost everything I post. You just so happen to be observing it. I've been laughing the entire time, and any real critical thinker would do the same (at you).

But snce you believe that I've been subverted, and are applauding it, thanks for demonstrating spooklike intentions, as any good spooks entire purpose is to trash constructive discourse and progress.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I wondered if you were going to leave it like that when you just KNEW I was going to point it out, but then you added this:



I just didn't have the heart to poke you with it. You didn't need to explain.

edit: now I'm doing it too - bleh

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Again, show me where I commited this where it wasn't warranted / where it wasn't reactionary / where it wasn't at the tail end here after the actual debate had taken place and then I decided to attack your constant and exponentially risng fallacious arguments...


It's funny that you implied that when someones losing a debate they resort to pointing out fallacies. In truth, it's when someones losing a debate that they resort to using fallacies. You've been using them since your first post.

Be sure to watch that video and show your DefenseContractor buddies. Being a weapons tech guy I promise you'll like it.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I imagine that if I were trying to make a technical argument and obviously was a bit lacking in my understanding and got called on it, it would be enticing to draw heat away by constantly whining about logical fallacies.

So I understand. Please, keep going. I especially like it when I don't reply for a while and you keep spinning up.

If I get a chance, I'll watch your 'video'. That ought to provide more entertainment, since at this point you're just scratching for any point you can make, no matter how ... pointless.

I'll be tied up for a few days, though, which is a pity.

Funny. My entire argument here is that artificial intelligence will be the enabler here, and they have the intent. You've admitted that you didn't look at my AI materials and that you dont have a clue about AI in general. This sets a whole new precident of argumentum ad ignorantiam
en.wikipedia.org...


You've been arguing things like holographs and other things that were red herring tactics that you actually took to the extremes of a "successful" Straw Man move and were irrelevent as my ehtire premise here is that they have the intent and that the AI will be the enabler. It was at the start and it remains now. I happened to mention "the 2025", and instead of focus on my main premises you've focused on the 2025. Now, after setting up and knocking down your holograph straw man, you're basically declaring victory, and literally tucking tail 9for days even) despite the fact that i didn't press you on your fallacious stance until i had long neutralized you and sure enough that's when the fallacies really went into overdrive.

EDIT: Most importantly: I didn't go in fallacy attack mode until I let you knock down your Straw Man, which I knew you would.

While you may be in denial, in truth the pleasure has been all mine, and I needed to dig back into the documents again anyways. This discourse did get me into seeing how I had missed the disclaimer in the 2025 document, which I'm glad for, as now I'll have to rerelease my video after fixing that, because the whole point of it was for all of the quotes to be from official documents.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Wow, I really hate to pop your bubble of narcissism and delusion here, but some of us have jobs that take them away from the house at times. I suspect that if you're still living in your parents' basement that sort of thing doesn't usually happen, but it is unfortunately true for some of us.

I'm off to the airport and won't be back until Friday quite late, at which time I'll have a backlog of family time to catch up on. And since I'm relatively certain you've never been on an engineering business trip, I'll forestall your next comment by saying yes, I'll have access on the road, but I'll be tied up pretty much constantly (I'm also coming up on the end of the semester - nothing like Masters level physics finals) and you will be the last thing I'll spend time on.

So if it makes you feel good to think I'm "tucking tail and running", enjoy it for the few days you have, because then I'm going to chop your "video" to shreds. You might want to hold off on the edits; I'm sure I'll give you a few more. No point doing it piecemeal.

edit: Odd, how you derive information from nowhere re "don't have a clue about AI in general". No doubt you can find where that was stated and point it out? No?

True, it's not my field, I've only had a couple of college courses on it. Which would be two more than you've had.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Perhaps I could have worded that better, but you're still pathetic as you're taking unfounded ad hominem attacks to a whole new level. It was funny watching you attempt to declare that I was engaging in ad hominem attacks earlier. With you being a weapons contractor, you would seriously know it if I were doing such, and the fact that I've kept my cool throughout this is a testament to the quality of my rational character. While you not keeping your cool, and resorting to fallacy arguments from start to finish, gloating about me paying for your education when money was why I couldn't take mine to the limit, and you being a weapons contractor on top of it all is a testament to what level of person you are.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I would just like to point out that this post has been changed from how I originally wrote it. Classic was changed to Classis. Ha ha.

Hey, whenever you return, I was wondering if you could manage to come and destroy any notion of HAARP being capable of weather modification in my new thread over in the Deflection forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This should obviously be no sweat for you as you're the reigning W.Mod. guru, and the .gov has no intention let alone capability to do such...



[edit on 26-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

IIB:

Was spooling through the back thread, and I would have sworn at one point you said something on the order of "I wish I had the money to order those other papers" or something like that, though I don't see it now just flipping through.

List 'em, we have a subscription to most scholarly journals. I can take a look and see if I can't snag any full-text articles you're looking for. There's a few publications we can't get but not many.

Oh, and I can't possibly have made an ignorantium fallacy as regards your video, I never commented on it at all, other than to say I hadn't seen it. Since I did not address its contents in any way, your accusation fails.

I'd like to apologize for the tone I set with you and others on other threads, I need to get around to all of them too. Lady Bedlam says I have become overly tense between projects at work and impending school finals, though she said it much more pointedly, so I'm going around doing a sort of ninth step. While I still don't agree with you in many cases, I could have been far more diplomatic about it.

At least this damned presentation/dog-n-pony show is over. Was in town there with you the first two days oddly enough, but I figured you'd have a cardiac if I showed up. Some of the guys from one customer site wanted to play a prank on you but I stopped it. Their senses of humor are crude at times.

You have a lot of interesting stuff going on right there in town with you, BTW. Some of it is supercomputer related but not AI per se.

I need to make time to look at your video. I have some stuff you might be interested in but you might already have it in there.

Coming up on finals next week, time will be scarce until it's over.

I was talking about those RAND reports.

List 'em, we have a subscription to most scholarly journals. I can take a look and see if I can't snag any full-text articles you're looking for. There's a few publications we can't get but not many.



Well the whole point of me posting here was to offer new insight into the weather modification concept / intentions / etc, and the AI view that is charted in my video was the center stage in my first post. My frusteration in here with you continuing to argue it out was you were only focusing on the weakest point / example of my first post (2025), while you were completely sidestepping the central theme I was offering. You continued until this very point to dismiss me and my entire view without ever even seeing what my view was, and focused on the only part that you werent ignorant about. You argued with and treated me like just another chum who just so happened to see the 2025 doc and then jumped to the conclussion that they already have it, and your comments were dripping with that sentiment in more than one post. If that's not aruing from ignorance then I don't know what is.



Now we're finally reaching a level of respect



So are you suggesting that you and your friends know who I am and how to find me?


It's only 20 mins long. I tried going for all official quotes / projects. I was hasty with the 2025 part which is all the way at the very end. So until that point it's all 'for real', were the 2025 citations are 'speculation'. I'm thinking about what I might do with that ending now that I've seen the disclaimer in the 2025 doc.

Post a list of the titles or what not, publication dates, some sort of thing I can search on for each one you want. A phrase from it would do if it's unique enough. I'll do a lookup and see if I can pry a full-text out.




I was sticking to the topic. I didn't see any point on wandering away onto some AI thing. I was wondering why you were trying to commandeer the thread and sidetrack it onto your pet project, actually. The resistance you perceived was me trying not to go off topic.



But isn't that proper debate procedure? The overall thread was, after all, about government weather control, not AI. And had I started commenting on your video, I would have been arguing from ignorance, having never seen it. I could discuss some AI topics since I am at least somewhat familiar with some aspects of it, and did some hardware design work for Brown University and others long ago in some "fourth generation" neural nets, but I'm primarily a hardware guy not an AI coder. And having never seen your video, I wouldn't have been able to comment on it with any authority.



No, an ignorantium would have happened if I'd commented on your video without seeing it. I could have commented on some aspect you address without doing this, for example, I don't have to see your video to know how some back-prop mechanisms work in neural nets, because I already know. But I don't know your viewpoint. Had I commented on that it would have been one.




I did a non-priority "finger" on you, so I got the first thing that looked like 75% or better probability of matching you. You live in Tampa, no? To do a priority ID takes an explanation of why I need it, but it is 99% accurate. The no priority "who's this?" is occasionally wrong but then that's why it's zero priority.

At any rate, we were shooting the s--t and I was telling them I had given some thought to meeting you but was afraid it would misconstrued as a Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back closing scene. So of course they wanted to ramp it to the hilt and show up with maybe 10 guys in uniforms to "give you the thrill you've been looking for" which was not going to happen. I used to do that s--t too when I was that age and active duty, it can get out of hand.



There are a few NASA projects that look like you'd like them, I need to run to ground if they were bid out, if so who got it, and if it's classified. That would be more fun to add than just a description.

Also there's some stuff that might be down your alley as regards certain types of computers, they don't call it "AI" anymore. The new buzzword is "emergent behavior". But at any rate they are trying to figure out how to fab HAL9000. You'll love the presentation.

So you ignored the strong part of my 1st post while honing in on the weak point. And then you treated me like the same old chum, because you didn't even look at the materials behind my complete argument.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

These were the RAND doc's I mentioned and was able to find doing an ordinary search at their site:
www.rand.org...
www.rand.org...


NASA's a prime hub in the broad initiative. I'm especially interested in anything that mentions Google.

I'll take a look at them and see if they're in the list of stuff I can get my hands on. Might be later on in the week, I'm in the charge for the finish line for this semester.

We did a search algorithm piece of hardware for someone once, it was described to us as if it were going in some Google-like search engine. I don't know if we're still under NDA. I'll look in the archives and see if it's expired, you might be interested in how they did it if I can tell you.

Also the AF is big on certain aspects of AI, and it's "strong" AI to boot. I suppose that's the aspect you're interested in? Weak AI, that is, expert systems and neural nets to catch patterns in behavior, isn't going to start looking for Sarah Connor on its own.