|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2008 : 12:13:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
You grant me...| I'll grant you that there have been some suspected incidents of stolen weapons grade uranium, but only one confirmed report I could find (and the amount was less than 2% of what you'd need for a crude bomb). The material was recovered and the people responsible arrested. |
Don't grant me, Dude, grant Dr. Barnaby. All I know of stolen U235 and weapons-grade plutonium comes from his book that you recommended.
How to Build a Nuclear Bomb pp 141-143Fears that a flourishing black market exists, involving the smuggling of fissile materials from Russia and other ex-Soviet republics, have been increased by a number of incidents. For example, the autorities in Prague seized 3 kilograms of uranium, enriched to 87 percent in the isotope U-235, in December 1994. And on August 10, 1994, about 330 grams of weapons-grade plutonium and 1 kilogram of lithium-6 were captured in Munich. A Colimbian and two Spaniards had been persuaded by German secret agents to bring the material to Germany.
On December 14, 1994, the Czech authorities seized 3 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Prague and three men were arrested. One was a Czech nuclear scientist. This would be a serious development, as they would, of course, be expert in identifying which materials to steal and how to handle them. These seizures were usually made after the authorities were tipped off, although in some cases intelligence agents had penetrated smuggling rings. The known incidents are probably the tip of an iceberg......
The next several pages are devoted to detailed discussion of extensive smuggling activities involving corrupted officials and the Russian Mafia |
Next, you say....| Since the first nuclear bomb was tested, there has never been an instance of one being stolen from the people who made it. |
Well, I don't know what your source for that information is, as you failed to give it. I have no idea, nor have I investigated it. However I will. It occurs to me that there may have been such thefts and the information was not given to a press conference by the Russian (or whatever) authorities! If a terrorist had a nuke, and was determined to use it on the US.... all they'd have to do is mail it! It seems to me that if such an event were going to happen... it already would have happened.
|
Well, that's scary enough, alright. How is it that you know for a fact that terrorists just haven't done this yet and can not or will not do it at any time in the future - which is what you say when you state that ..."if such an event was going to happen... it already would have happened"? Does the past inevitably predict the future? | And fails to provide a definition of "significant", and fails to provide the data he used to calculate this risk(because he doesn't have any), and fails to enumerate (because, as you point out, he can't) the specific risk... I am left with the impression that he is overreacting. |
I think that is a reasonable conclusion, and it applies equally to his opinion that "A group of two or three people with appropriate skills could design and fabricate a crude nuclear explosive" | Obviously we should be looking to increase the security of the world's nuclear weapons (Pakistan might be a good place to start!), and the US should indeed take the lead in an international effort in this area. It is not an impossible task to keep these destructive weapons out of the hands of those who would use them for anything other than MAD bargaining. |
Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. | But to describe nuclear terrorism as some imminent threat,.... |
I have not stated that I thought the threat was imminent in the sense of immediate imminence, such as weeks or months. Possibly imminent in the sense of within a few years, yes!.....and remain credible, is going to require more than some anecdotes about "suspected" refined uranium smuggling.
|
I feel that I, and Posted by Dude - 03/11/2008 : 18:14:11 [Permalink]
Frank Barnaby, nuclear physicist, and Nuclear Issues Consultant to the Oxford Research Group has the following to say: |
have done a great deal more than provide a few anecdotes, and therefore certainly remain credible.
It is my largely uneducated opinion that Dr. Barnaby and possibly Mr. Rhodes may offer information that may heighten that credibility! However, in my current state of unmitigated boorish stupidity and ignorance, my opinion should be given very little value!
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 12:54:48 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. |
Now you are attributing a position to me that I have never held. Stop making shit up.
| Well, I don't know what your source for that information is, as you failed to give it. I have no idea, nor have I investigated it. However I will. It occurs to me that there may have been such thefts and the information was not given to a press conference by the Russian (or whatever) authorities! |
The idea that such a theft could be covered up is laughable. For such a theft to have gone unreported would require that the stolen device appears as if it were not stolen, and the theft continues undiscovered to this day. Such a circumstance is ludicrous, considering that the nuclear arsenals all require constant maintenance and upkeep. Our intel people (who were good at cold war stuff) would have discovered any attempt to cover up such a theft in the USSR, and here in the US somebody would have leaked it.
You have become so absurd in this thread that I'm afraid I'm finished here. If you ever decide to leave irrational panic land and return to reality, maybe I'll rejoin the discussion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Pelayo
Skeptic Friend
USA
70 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 14:16:57 [Permalink]
|
I've been away for a while.
Watch this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
It's Geert Wilders' short documentary called "Fitna." Of course it is about the Netherlands, but can we be far behind. |
I have a habit of posting without reading all previous comments, if I am repeating someone, well, excuse me, please.
"No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." - William Howard Taft
"God ran out of new souls a long time ago and has been recycling jackasses." - Anon |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 16:16:38 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
Keeping in mind your admonition to me....And you are truly getting too senile to argue effectively on this board.
You're misrepresentation of what I have written is entertaining in the light of that. |
I want to be certain that my senility does not prevent me from representing you accurately again! As I understand it, your question is:| What type of nuclear bomb can you build with plutonium oxide extracted from MOX? |
I posted on 3/26 a direct quote from Dr. Frank Barnaby's book, How to Build a Nuclear Bomb:| A primitive nuclear explosive constructed from plutonium oxide may have an explosive yield smaller and less predictable than a device constructed from plutonium metal. The terrorists, therefore, may decide to prepare plutonium metal from the plutonium oxide they may have separated from MOX nuclear fuel. This can be done by using standard chemical techniques. |
My age-impaired facuties suggest to me that the answer to your question may be: "A primitive nuclear explosive constructed from plutonium oxide, or from plutonium metal derived from plutonium oxide" Dr. Barnaby goes on to describe the process:| If terrorists acquire MOX fuel, they could relatively easily remove the plutonium oxide from it chemically and use it to fabricate a nuclear weapon. The chemical separation of plutonium from uranium in MOX fuel pellets is facilitated by the fact that these elements have very different chemistries. The procedures required would be simple and well within the technological capabilities of a moderately sophisticated terrorist organization |
Those are the words of Dr. Barnaby, a nuclear physicist and Nuclear Issues Consultant to the Oxford Research Group, not mine!| In all terrorist-scenarios we've discussed so far has relied on a bomb design simple enough for a mechanical engineer to put together: the Gun-barrel bomb. |
Yes, I know. Apparently Dr. Barnaby feels that construction of a plutonium bomb is possibly adolescent or young-adult play rather than child's play. Perhaps a small, empty high-school gymnasium instead of a basement or garage, and probably way out in the country some place to deaden the commotion caused by the necessary trial-and-error experimentation necessary to re-invent the technology of shaped-charge explosive lenses!
Hopefully, Dr. Barnaby will clarify these matters somewhat when he responds to my enquiries. I am undoubtedly too senile to understand his response, but I will transcribe it and pass it on to your superior understanding of nuclear weapon construction! If I can satisfactorily continue to copy his answers to your questions either from passages in his book or from correspondence to me, it is my hope that you will allow me to remain posting, albeit dementedly, on these boards for a few more months until my undoubtedly imminent demise from sheer senescence! And please find it in your heart to pardon my repeatedly asking for repetition of information that has already been posted!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 17:07:47 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
My original post on 3/02: | But no one can doubt that this group of crazies has the very real potential of inflicting hideous damage on the US if they manage to buy, borrow, steal, or build a nuclear device of enough sophistication to smuggle into the US. |
Your answer on 3/02;| Yeah, well, too bad the republicans have effectively destroyed the only real mechanism that could stop such an event if one of those weapons became available to a well funded terrorist organization. Law enforcement with international cooperation. Its the only answer to that problem, |
This appears to me to be an agreement and confirmation of my comments on 3/02! Do you deny this?
Then your post on 3/26:| Obviously we should be looking to increase the security of the world's nuclear weapons (Pakistan might be a good place to start!), and the US should indeed take the lead in an international effort in this area. |
Now, Dude this last comment of yours on 3/26 sounds to me like an additional affirmation of what I started out saying when I first posted in this thread on 3/02 - terrorists have the potential of seriously harming the U.S. if they acquire nuclear weapons, obviously we need to take action to decrease this threat! Is that not true?
Then, in reference to your | "Obviously we should be looking to increase the security of the world's nuclear weapons, and the US should indeed take the lead in an international effort in this area" |
....I say... | Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. |
....and you suddenly go ballistic!| Now you are attributing a position to me that I have never held. Stop making shit up. You have become so absurd in this thread that I'm afraid I'm finished here. If you ever decide to leave irrational panic land and return to reality, maybe I'll rejoin the discussion. |
Well, I definitely think it's time for your nap! You dropped the choo-choo toy, pick it up with the rest and go on home. Maybe we can talk again when you have regained some control.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2008 : 17:28:08 [Permalink]
|
bng (in full on marfknox mode) said:
| Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. |
bolding mine.
So yes, you are attributing to me a position I have never held. If you can't refrain from this type of argument (a sign that you actually have no argument anyway), then I'm not engaging you on this topic further.
My position is simple. Neither you, nor actual nuclear physicists with some expertise on this topic, can quantify the risk posed by "nuclear terrorism". Until you can, you are doing nothing but fear-mongering when you insist, in your shrill manner, that this threat is somehow imminent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 01:09:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
In reference to your statement....
| "Obviously we should be looking to increase the security of the world's nuclear weapons, and the US should indeed take the lead in an international effort in this area" |
....I say...
Precisely my point throughout this entire thread!
It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. |
You then misinterpret with bolding on 03/27/2008: 17:28:08......
You said....bng said:
Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however.
|
Now you are attributing a position to me that I have never held. Stop making shit up. |
I am not making any "shit" up, nor am I attributing anything to you that you have not said.!
In order to escape, you have completely missed the word "however" as though I didn't say it, and misconstrued my statement to be...
Dude
Obviously we should be looking to increase the security of the world's nuclear weapons, and the US should indeed take the lead in an international effort in this area.
bngbuck
Precisely my point throughout this entire thread, it takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem. |
When I said no such thing! The word "however" changes the intent of the first part of the sentence, and introduces a different meaning into the last part of the sentence!
Sorry, Dude, it won't work!
| Neither you, nor actual nuclear physicists with some expertise on this topic, can quantify the risk posed by "nuclear terrorism". |
What experts would you like me to cite other than the nuclear physicist that you suggested as supportive of your opinion Dude?
How about J. Carson Mark, Theodore Taylor, Eugene Eyster, William Maraman, and Jacob Wechsler, "Can Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons?" in Paul Leventhal and Yonah Alexander, eds., Preventing Nuclear Terrorism, Report of the International Task Force on Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books), pp. 55-66.? The authors are all U.S. nuclear weapons designers!
If these folks' opinions are all inferior to your expertise, I have found several others!
| Until you can, you are doing nothing but fear-mongering when you insist, in your shrill manner, that this threat is somehow imminent. |
What you conveniently forget to state, Dude, is that Dr. Barnaby - whose verity and expertise you chose to substantiate your argument - is the one who is fear-mongering, as those are his quotes.
So, is he "fear-mongering" when he states "A group of two or three people with appropiate skills could design and fabricate a crude nuclear explosive?" - the only statement other than your own opinion that you have used to substantiate your argument?| If you can't refrain from this type of argument then I'm not engaging you on this topic further. |
Dude, you already picked up your toys and ran home, remember? Several times! As in.....| It just isn't possible to engage in this debate of opinion with you |
| I'm going to stop speaking to you if you continue to behave like marfknox. |
| I'm done arguing with you. |
| But hey, I said I wasn't arguing this with you any more, |
| I'm afraid I'm finished here. |
| maybe I'll rejoin the discussion. |
Your steadfast resolve is rock-solid, Dude
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 04:23:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
bng (in full on marfknox mode) said:
| Precisely my point throughout this entire thread! It takes an abandonment of denial and a recognition of the problem, however. |
bolding mine.
So yes, you are attributing to me a position I have never held. If you can't refrain from this type of argument (a sign that you actually have no argument anyway), then I'm not engaging you on this topic further. |
bngbuck didn't explicitly address you in these two sentences, although the post itself is a reply to you. He may be addressing some unknown reader whom he thinks is in denial.
| My position is simple. Neither you, nor actual nuclear physicists with some expertise on this topic, can quantify the risk posed by "nuclear terrorism". Until you can, you are doing nothing but fear-mongering when you insist, in your shrill manner, that this threat is somehow imminent. |
I agree.
I also think that bngbuck is exaggerating the simplicity of constructing an implosion bomb, compared to a gun barrel bomb. Creating a symmetrical implosion is something completely different than loading a cannon.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 04:29:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What you conveniently forget to state, Dude, is that Dr. Barnaby - whose verity and expertise you chose to substantiate your argument - is the one who is fear-mongering, as those are his quotes.
|
Just because we can find Jerusalem where the Bible says it should be, doesn't mean Jesus is real.
Dude has addressed this particular argument already. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 05:56:10 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
What experts would you like me to cite other than the nuclear physicist that you suggested as supportive of your opinion Dude?
|
There you go again, making more shit up. I cited Barnaby for the simplicity of constructing a crude nuclear bomb, yet now you are trying to say that I consider his entire book "supportive of my opinion".
Just like the republicans (including Hillary) who are saying that Obama must be of the same opinion as his crazy preacher. Or he must be muslim because he wore a funny hat once. etc.
Good job!
Your red herring tactics have fully diverted the thread away from the topic, so I'll accept that as your concession and admission you are wrong.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 16:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
| I also think that bngbuck is exaggerating the simplicity of constructing an implosion bomb, compared to a gun barrel bomb. Creating a symmetrical implosion is something completely different than loading a cannon. |
When I posted....| Apparently Dr. Barnaby feels that construction of a plutonium bomb is possibly adolescent or young-adult play rather than child's play. Perhaps a small, empty high-school gymnasium instead of a basement or garage, and probably way out in the country some place to deaden the commotion caused by the necessary trial-and-error experimentation necessary to re-invent the technology of shaped-charge explosive lenses! |
...I was referring to Dr. Barnaby's views, not mine. I prefaced the statement with "Apparently Dr. Barnaby feels that...." referring to Dr. Barnaby's apparent rather superficial treatment of the subject!
It looks like we have some sort of language problem here, Dr. Mabuse. I felt that my comment above (in the blue quotation box) was laced with such heavy sarcasm that no one would have difficulty "getting it"!
I am completely aware of the differences in construction and the difficulties of fabrication of nuclear fission bombs! As I attempt to show below, I have heavily researched the subject, as it is considerable source data for a portion of the book I am writing, specifically, The Perception of Fear and Danger.
As you probably know, one of the primary technological hurdles in designing the original plutonium implosion bomb was the invention of, design, fabrication, location, aiming and synchronous detonation of the high explosive lenses necessary to effect sufficient compression of the plutonium sphere in the few milliseconds mandatory to cause fission!
To suggest that relatively untrained terrorists could take raw RDX, HMX, PETN or even TNT and learn to fabricate, construct, place, and detonate such precisely focused explosive lenses in a short time with limited facilities is ludicrous! Of course, the plutonium implosion bomb is many orders of magnitude more difficult to fabricate than a "cannon type" U235 bomb.
I definitely am not "exaggerating the simplicity of constructing an implosion bomb"! A plutonium bomb would be much more difficult to construct that a uranium 235 bomb, although there are significant fabrication complexities associated with the "cannon' type of construction!
Dr. Mabuse, since entering this thread, I have read, and reread, and read extensively in, the following:
1. The Making of the Atomic Bomb Richard Rhodes 886pp
2. Dark Sun Richard Rhodes 731pp
3. Arsenals of Folly Richard Rhodes 400pp
4. How to Build a Nuclear Bomb Frank Barnaby 180pp
5. The Los Alamos Primer Robert Serber 98pp
6. Preventing Nuclear Terrorism, Report of the International Task Force on Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism Paul Leventhal and Yonah Alexander 554 pp
7. "Can Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons?" J. Carson Mark, Theodore Taylor, Eugene Eyster, William Maraman, and Jacob Wechsler.
Separate essay portion of (6) above.
I have three more books not available on the internet ordered currently, including The Curve of Binding Energy by John McPhee - as suggested to me by Richard Rhodes, below.
I have written to both Richard Rhodes, who won the Pulitzer Prize, The Nation Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award for The Making of the Atomic Bomb; and to Dr. Frank Barnaby, author of How to Build a Nuclear Bomb. Dr. Barnaby, who is an advisor to and member of the Oxford Research Group, a highly respected British "Think Tank". He lives and works in London, and I was unable to obtain his e-mail, so I wrote him by conventional postal mail. I have not yet received his response to my queries.
However, I received this morning a brief reply from Richard Rhodes, whom I had occasion to correspond with previously. The full text follows:Bill:
The most authoritative assessment of the possibility of a terrorist group building a nuclear weapon is:
J. Carson Mark, Theodore Taylor, Eugene Eyster, William Maraman, and Jacob Wechsler, "Can Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons?" in Paul Leventhal and Yonah Alexander, eds., Preventing Nuclear Terrorism, Report of the International Task Force on Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1987), pp. 55-66.
You can probably find the essay if you have access to a good library, or online as a used book. The authors are all U.S. nuclear weapons designers, so they know whereof they speak.
Dr. Barnaby doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. Plutonium is not a material that can be easily fabricated into a nuclear weapon, since it's more than twice as fissile as highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and has to be assembled with sophisticated shaped-charge explosives if it's not simply to melt down with a trivial explosive yield. HEU, on the other hand, possibly could be made into an effective weapon, but quite a bit of it would be needed, perhaps 50 kg, and that much would be very difficult indeed to acquire and fabricate. The notion that Russia is cavalier about its nuclear materials misses Russia's very real concern with terrorism around its borders from countries like Chechnya. To enrich uranium requires a substantial and traceable investment in industrial-scale technology; breeding plutonium requires a nuclear reactor. Neither one is available to small groups working in basements.
I won't go into a discussion of bomb design, except to say that plutonium isn't suitable and HEU needs an elaborate gun barrel.
You'll find more information about nuclear weapons in the paper I cited, in my books and in Wikipedia. If you really want to pursue the subject, look up John McPhee's book: The Curve of Binding Energy, which is about the gifted Los Alamos bomb designer Ted Taylor, one of the authors of the above paper. But remember that Ted was a technical genius and thought a homemade bomb would be relatively easy--easy for Ted!
Good to hear from you again. I hope you sleep a little more soundly as a result of this communication.
Best to you and family,
Richard Rhodes |
As you can see, there are considerable differences in opinion between Mr. Rhodes and Dr. Barnaby with regards to the details of nuclear bomb fabrication. Although I have read several thousand pages on this subject, I have a long way to go before I would present my opinions as conclusive or definitive! And anyone who just shoots from the hip with his own quick guess about these matters without seriously researching the abundant material available, simply makes a fool out of himself!
I am currently digesting the Preventing Nuclear Terrorism report, written by a group of nuclear weapon designers, cited above. I intend to complete Rhodes' suggested reference The Curve of Binding Energy next before commenting on this thread again - there are too many diverging views from too many experts at this point to make highly conclusive statements.
If you care to further educate yourself as to the specifics of nuclear weapon construction, there are well over 100 useful websites and exerpts from the literature available with simple Google search. In any event, there is no excuse for presenting one's own opinion on this subject without credible references from the many experts that have written about it!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 03/28/2008 18:45:49 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 18:33:05 [Permalink]
|
Dude].....
Your post on 3/11 in it's entireityPosted - 03/11/2008 : 18:14:11 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Frank Barnaby, nuclear physicist, and Nuclear Issues Consultant to the Oxford Research Group has the following to say:
From page 36 of How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction:
A group of two or three people with appropriate skills could
design and fabricate a crude nuclear explosive. It is a sobering
fact that the fabrication of a primitive nuclear explosive using
plutonium or suitable uranium would require no greater skill
than that required for the production and use of the nerve agent
produced by the AUM group and released in the Tokyo underground.
A crude nuclear explosive designed and built by terrorists could
well explode with a power equivalent to that of 100 tons of TNT. |
(emphasis mine) |
My statement was: | What experts would you like me to cite other than the nuclear physicist that you suggested as supportive of your opinion Dude? |
Where in that question do I state or imply that....| now you are trying to say that I consider his entire book "supportive of my opinion". |
??????
I referred to the citation i.e. quotation, that you gave as supportive of your view, and to the author of that quotation, whom I now understand you do not wish to be associated with - thus my request for some other nuclear physicist's, or nuclear weapons historian's, or nuclear weapons designer's or designers' opinions; of which I have collected a sizeable number in the past few weeks! Totally on topic, I assure you! Absolutely no red fish!
If it is your desire to continue this discussion, despite many declarations to the contrary, I am prepared to quote a new expert every few days or so for you to declare a "red herring" and then we can discard that poor scientist into the fish barrel and proceed to examine the color of the next clupea harengus that swims up! Thanks. I feel that it has been a pretty thorough presentation!| I'll accept that as your concession and admission you are wrong. |
If that is a statement of a current delusional state that you are experiencing, I will certainly give you leave to seek medical help and medication until you feel capable of resuming your apparently endless artillery barrage of insults - all of which belong in the same fish barrel that you are collecting your imaginary red herrings!
When you are sufficiently sated on your favorite fish, I will be happy to supply you with additional very specific expert opinion on the precise subjects we have been attempting to discuss - in between the pedestrian parade of perjorative and phantom piscifauna that you provide!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2008 : 19:04:21 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
What you conveniently forget to state, Dude, is that Dr. Barnaby - whose verity and expertise you chose to substantiate your argument - is the one who is fear-mongering, as those are his quotes.
|
| What experts would you like me to cite other than the nuclear physicist that you suggested as supportive of your opinion Dude? |
You are implying, repeatedly, that because I quote a physicist on the simplicity of bomb building I must somehow also agree with the rest of his assertions, or that because I reference him on a subject he is credible to speak on that I should listen to everything else he has to say.
You are being an asshole, and like marfknox(yet another similarity), you appear to enjoy being the target of forum abuse. Well, press the intercom button and summon your nurse, change your depends, drink a scotch, and take a nap. I don't want to be responsible for you stroking out while reading this forum. Continue to taunt all you want, no matter how churlish you become I'm not going to provide you with a free spanking.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 12:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| You are implying, repeatedly, that because I quote a physicist on the simplicity of bomb building I must somehow also agree with the rest of his assertions, |
Your ability to manipilate inference into implication is remarkable!| ...because I reference him on a subject he is credible to speak on that I should listen to everything else he has to say. |
Yes, if you find him credible and supportive of one of your positions, you should definitely listen to everything else he has to say if for no other reason than to see if he says other things to bolster your shoot-from-the-hip opinions. I don't think you have read his entire book!| You are being an asshole, |
Now, there's the dude I have learned to love to debate, Dude! Out of rhetoric, out of reason, out of references for unsubstantiated opinions; right straight back to schoolyard scatology! For a little while, (no body-parts derogation for three consecutive posts!) I thought you had possibly read a bit and picked up some skill in crafting your language from something more than three and four letter words of personal attack. Nope, here we go again - next I'll hear about my unbearable shit-for-brains stupidity, et cetera ad nauseum!| like marfknox(yet another similarity) |
Your obcessive references to Marfknox are interesting. Is it that she, like myself, sees your stupefyingly boring onslaughts of fecal ad hominem as not worthy of an educated adult engaging in a serious discussion? As the kids would say, Dude, that's so last year SFN!| Well, press the intercom button and summon your nurse, change your depends, drink a scotch, and take a nap. |
That's a hell of a lot better, a spark or two of true wit, not an execretory adjective in the entire sentence! Beats the hell out of GOD FUCK YOU, YOU DUMB-AS-SHIT, OLD JESUSFUCKING, TURD-SUCKING, PRICKPOUNDING, IGNORANT PISS-HOLE! That kind of language disappeared from these boards last fall, and properly so. To the extent that you revive some of it from time to time, is not to the credit of SFN nor yourself! I have no objection to the "obscenity", the crudity, not even the insult itself, as I take pleasure in returning attack! But what I do deplore is the substitution of personal name-calling for reasoned adversarial discourse! Nothing can be learned from calling names, other than additions to a vocabulary of profane insult!
Don't have a nurse, but I really like the idea! Ran out of diapers, but I have a call in to Dotage Doo-Doo to bring some biodegradeable ones - those damn cloth peepants have been repeatedly clogging the toilet!
That Scotch was a fine idea! Suntory of Japan! They own most of the Scottish distilleries now, but the finest Scotch in the world is produced by some tiny designer distilleries in Japan (owned by Suntory, also!) Good Stuff!
Napping is natural when talking to you. The perjorative puts me to sleep before I even finish the first paragraph or two!| I don't want to be responsible for you stroking out while reading this forum. |
Dude, you naughty nellie! I'm really too old for you, but I'm really flattered! Actually, I use Viagra; and the equipment still works pretty good still considering the vintage!.... Oh....did you mean a cerebral hemmor.....oh shit, I'm sorry...I shouldn't have..!| Continue to pant all you want, no matter how churlish you become |
Well, I did kind of lose control for a minute there. Your big words confuse me, Dude, churlish....is that Incandescent Intelligence? Thanks, just brilliant will do fine!| I'm not going to provide you with a free spanking. |
Christ, Dude, now you've got me really excited!! How much do you charge - oh hell, it dont matter, get over here, bitch!! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2008 : 15:15:54 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
You are being an asshole, and like marfknox(yet another similarity), you appear to enjoy being the target of forum abuse. |
Well, Dude, it sure looks like you're still having trouble with that personal insult thing. You know? The one you were going to get under control. I think you just might need to work on that some more.
But now, I am looking for Marf's contributions to this thread and all I come up with is you, using your dislike for her (for reasons that you think should be evident to everyone, or the reference has no meaning) as an example of an extreme insult. Two insults at two adversaries, (and one of them from long distance) for the price of one! What a guy.
Plus, you have Bill, no stranger to insults himself, from either direction, pushing your buttons and playing you like a harp from hell. That can't be good.
Let's see. Page 14. Hmmm…
You know that joke? The punch line is “Someone on the Internet is wrong!” Think about it.
Here's the deal. One more post like the above and this thread is over.
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Muslim jihadists"
