Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 6:09 AM
407 online now:
PaulK, Rrhain (2 members, 405 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,065 Year: 6,671/21,208 Month: 2,432/2,634 Week: 95/525 Day: 10/60 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   The Dunning–Kruger effect
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 16 of 30 (795314)
12-10-2016 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
12-10-2016 9:55 PM


Re: Secretary of State
The many little wars the US has been involved in for the last several decades have all been about oil ... just not so blatantly.

Perhaps if we were able to build nuclear plants, like we used to do and like France still does, we wouldn't need to rely so much on foreign oil.

But the very word "nuclear" seems to send the rabid environmentalists heading for their fainting couches.

Pretty silly way to run a country...


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2016 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2016 10:27 PM Coyote has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 17 of 30 (795316)
12-10-2016 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
12-10-2016 10:15 PM


Re: Secretary of State
Perhaps if we were able to build nuclear plants, like we used to do and like France still does, ...

But Germany and Japan have stopped doing ... wonder why? Perhaps it has to do with waste disposal and public safety issues.

Do you know what the hazards of nuclear generation are? Do you know more than the scientists in Germany and Japan? We are talking Dunning Kruger effect on this thread afterall ...

... we wouldn't need to rely so much on foreign oil.

Or we could put as much money into solar and wind power and eliminate the need for oil all together, growing hemp to make biofuel for portable energy. It's not rocket science, you can do it in your back yard: I have. I bet even a redneck can ... oh wait there are youtube videos of just this being done ...

The technology is there, the costs are virtually equivalent now and getting better and better for renewable energy.

My solar panels generate more electricity than I use and I haven't paid an electric bill since august 2015.

What's silly is to pursue oil and kill the planet in the process.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 12-10-2016 10:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 12-10-2016 10:32 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2016 10:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 18 of 30 (795317)
12-10-2016 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
12-10-2016 10:27 PM


Re: Secretary of State
Or we could put as much money into solar and wind power and eliminate the need for oil all together...

You'll have to show me the numbers on that.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2016 10:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2016 8:15 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 19 of 30 (795330)
12-11-2016 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
12-10-2016 10:32 PM


Re: Secretary of State
You'll have to show me the numbers on that.

Sorry, not on topic. Unless you can tie it to the Dunning-Kruger effect ...

Perhaps by referencing another paper like (I was searching for a previous thread on this off-topic issue and found this):

Climate Change is Real Message 3
AGW Bombshell? A new paper shows statistical tests for global warming fails to find statistically significantly anthropogenic forcing

http://wattsupwiththat.com/...ficantly-anthropogenic-forcing

... by three economists that clearly are not climatologists and have no clue about climate modeling, but that think they can pass expert critique on climate change because hey, they can do maths ...

... now that is a great example of DK effect, yes?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 12-10-2016 10:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 30 (795335)
12-11-2016 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by caffeine
12-06-2016 4:04 AM


I'd note that the figure 2 you linked is the one based on logical reasoning and thus probably the most key figure and that it does show less competent people rating themselves higher than more competent people - although not higher than the most competent.

Personally, I think the most significant part of the paper is study 3 where they found that the unskilled not only predicted their own skill wrong but were unable to re-calibrate when shown the results of the more skilled.

(The paper is Available here for free if anyone wants to read it)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by caffeine, posted 12-06-2016 4:04 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 12-11-2016 2:51 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7388
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 21 of 30 (795336)
12-11-2016 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
12-10-2016 10:27 PM


nuclear ignorance?
But Germany and Japan have stopped doing ... wonder why? Perhaps it has to do with waste disposal and public safety issues.

The politics of fear, Germany and Japan both faced huge public pressure after a second gen power station failed and a whole 600-1,000 people theoretically received lethal exposure and have or will die younger (about 20,000 died near immediately as a result of the actual natural disaster). It wasn't science that made the determination. Increasing your risk of radiation caused death from 0.75% to 1.25% is not good, but it's not so catastrophic that we should decide not to build Generation III plants - from a scientific point of view. That doesn't win votes, though.

Compare with the Generation III Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant which was at the epicentre of an earthquake at the same magnitude as the Fukushima one.

Do you know what the hazards of nuclear generation are?

Yes, negligible.

100,000 people die globally per trillion kWh of coal generation (10,000 in the US)

440 people die globally per trillion kWh of solar generation.

150 people die globally per trillion kWh of wind generation

90 people die globally per trillion kWh of nuclear generation - including Chernobyl and Fukushima. (in the US it is 0.01)

Similar numbers have been derived by others.

Are you under the impression you know more than you actually do?

Do you know more than the scientists in Germany and Japan?

Are you saying that scientists in Germany and Japan set energy policy, based on science rather than politicians based on votes?

That sounds like you think you know more about German and Japanese politics than you actually do.

Or we could put as much money into solar and wind power and eliminate the need for oil all together, growing hemp to make biofuel for portable energy.

Well there is a supply issue, right? There are lots more dead things that became fossil oil than living things that could become, with further processing, useable oil. I'm fine it - the UK has the top 3 largest biomass-electricity plants in the world. In fact Drax is the largest plant in Europe, and provides us with 5-10% of our power.

Of course, we have to import all that biomass (it's wood, incidentally) from other countries - and if those other countries followed our lead, we might not be able to do that....

My solar panels generate more electricity than I use and I haven't paid an electric bill since august 2015.

Did you ever investigate what happened to all the silicon tetrachloride that was produced to make your solar panels? In 2015, it was probably recycled, but it may still have been dumped. Even if you try other materials you still end having to use things like cadmium.

Still, it's difficult to get away from the dangers of hydrofluoric acid of which a LOT is used. It's possible to use other chemicals (which are themselves also toxic, but easier to handle) but business is business and low regulation nations are going to be able to sell their products cheaper.

It should be pointed out that it can take about 2 years of continuous operation to pay back the energy needed to make solar panels. So assuming you installed them January 1st 2015, you're still several weeks from having saved the planet from anything.

Then there is amount of carbon pollution that occurs as a result of making them. Depending on where they were made you might not get a net carbon emission benefit until 2019.

Then you might consider possible damage caused by wind, rain and snow on your home; If a toxic chemical plant is hit by a natural disaster, that's an ecological disaster. If a toxic chemical transport ship has a spillage, it's an ecological disaster.

This is all simplified, and it's certainly better than Coal and oil, but it's easy to think you know more than you do when the environmental costs are moved from the point of generation to point of manufacturing and maintenance.

So what about Nuclear Waste? It's incredibly compact and well contained, as opposed to just about all other toxic waste from all other methods. If we want to argue something like 'we can recycle waste products in solar power' then we can say the same for nuclear power only the improvements within our technological grasp are orders of magnitude greater.

Because of THE FEAR, nuclear waste is more heavily regulated and monitored than other waste. Unfortunately, that same fear means there is a lot of political stalemate over moving it around.

Most US scientists, and even more physicists favour building more nuclear power

quote:
Colorado, where much of the uranium is obtained, is a geologically active region, full of faults and fissures and mountains rising out of the prairie, and there are about a billion tons of uranium in its surface rock. (This number is based on the fact that granite typically contains 4 parts per million of uranium. I take the area of the Colorado Rockies to be about 300 by 400 kilometers, and consider only rock from the surface to 1,000 meters depth.) The radioactivity in this uranium is 20 times greater than the legal limit for Yucca Mountain, and will take more than 13 billion years-not just a few hundred-for the radioactivity to drop by a factor of ten. Yet water that runs through, around, and over this radioactive rock is the source of the Colorado River, and is used for drinking water in much of the west, including Los Angeles and San Diego. And unlike the glass pellets that store the waste in Yucca Mountain, most of the uranium in the Colorado ground is water-soluble. Here is the absurd-sounding conclusion: if the Yucca Mountain facility was at full capacity and all the waste leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed to reach ground water, the danger would still be 20 times less than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into the Colorado River.

quote:
But when ingested (e.g. from ground water) it isn’t. According to the linear hypothesis, when consumed by a group of people, we expect about one extra cancer for each half-gram of plutonium swallowed. That is bad, but not a record-setter. Botulism toxin (found in poorly prepared mayonnaise) is a thousand times worse.

(embed starts 51 minutes in at the pertinent part)

https://www.technologyreview.com/...-witch-of-yucca-mountain

Do you know more than most scientists?
Is your competence high enough to assess the facts correctly, or is your confidence a function of relative ignorance?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first link. There had been an extra space at the end of the url.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2016 10:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2016 5:03 PM Modulous has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 22 of 30 (795342)
12-11-2016 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
12-11-2016 10:10 AM


I'd note that the figure 2 you linked is the one based on logical reasoning and thus probably the most key figure and that it does show less competent people rating themselves higher than more competent people - although not higher than the most competent.

Both the posted graphs were based on logical reasoning ability (figures 2 & 4).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 12-11-2016 10:10 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 23 of 30 (795346)
12-11-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
12-11-2016 10:15 AM


Re: nuclear ignorance?
The politics of fear, Germany and Japan both faced huge public pressure after a second gen power station failed and a whole 600-1,000 people theoretically received lethal exposure and have or will die younger (about 20,000 died near immediately as a result of the actual natural disaster). It wasn't science that made the determination. Increasing your risk of radiation caused death from 0.75% to 1.25% is not good, but it's not so catastrophic that we should decide not to build Generation III plants - from a scientific point of view. That doesn't win votes, though.

Gosh, fear of accidents like have happened over and over and over? Cherynoble, 5 mile island, Fukushima are the ones we remember, fear of long term effects on people and their children?

Pardon me, but I think it is very reasonable to be wary of nuclear power because of its past failures. Especially when you have a better alternative.

Germany and Japan are committing to solar and wind etc generation because (a) it is economical and (b) there is low hazard potential

Yes, negligible.

(a) I don't read links that require me to turn off my ad-blocker -- it is there for a reason. I get enough garbage as it is.

(b) so I can't see the basis for your numbers. However, that did not stop me from looking myself:

quote:
Solar Energy Risks To Health

The health hazards associated with solar photovoltaic (PV) occurs before panels commissioned in the consumer’s home. ...

It is estimated that the health risks of solar energy associated with the production of solar panels per unit of energy can be between 11 and 21 deaths per quadrillion joules of energy produced.


One kilowatt-hour is 3.6 megajoules: so your "440 people die globally per trillion kWh" becomes 440 people per 3.6 trillion megajoules ...
... 122 people per trillion (10^9) million (10^6) ... or 122 people per 10^15 ... which happens to be a quadrillion (US), so your number here appears to be off by a factor of 10 or so, making my sources number less than your numbers for nuclear.

These deaths are also all solely in production and do not accumulate through the life of the panels, unlike fossil fuel and nuclear, and this means you need to look at the deaths over the lifetime of the panels and windmills, not just at the initial manufacture because those lifetime generations add to the kWh generated by the panels per death and would reduce the death-toll by another order of magnitude or more.

For instance, my panels should last 30 to 50 years with a small decline in output over the years. I also expect global warming to increase cloud cover in coming years. Then there would be the cost to dispose of the panels at the end of their life, so we can likely double the death-toll and be conservative. Still ahead, imho.

A similar lifetime analysis for nuclear generation and the billion year lifetime for the waste product would add to that number.

Of course the industry could switch to nuclear chains that do not create isotopes with extremely long half-lives, like Thorium 232

quote:
Beginning with naturally occurring thorium-232, this series includes the following elements: actinium, bismuth, lead, polonium, radium, radon and thallium. All are present, at least transiently, in any natural thorium-containing sample, whether metal, compound, or mineral. The series terminates with lead-208.

The total energy released from thorium-232 to lead-208, including the energy lost to neutrinos, is 42.6 MeV


Thorium is found naturally because, while it has a long half-life, the decay product half-lives are 5.7 years or less, so the eventual end of decay occurs relatively fast and thus relatively safe to dispose of at an earlier date. I was a fan in the 70's (when living in Toronto).

CANDU reactors are capable of using thorium,[34][35] and Thorium Power Canada has, in 2013, planned and proposed developing thorium power projects for Chile and Indonesia.[36]

Seems to me using the Thorium 232 decay chain would vastly reduce the health and safety risk of nuclear power.

Similar numbers have been derived by others.

And probably equally prone to comparing apples and oranges. Did you check them?

Curiously, I don't doubt that the oil and nuclear industries gather all kinds of information suited to Forbes (business) type reporting to promote nuclear business and oil business.

Are you under the impression you know more than you actually do?

You tell me, I have followed nuclear generation for several decades and have not seen any significant change, while there has been massive growth and development in wind and solar. Growth and development that will continue to improve product production and safety.

Are you saying that scientists in Germany and Japan set energy policy, based on science rather than politicians based on votes?

That sounds like you think you know more about German and Japanese politics than you actually do.

My question was not regarding the politics. It is the scientist and design engineers duty to show risk at a politically acceptable level. This is true of any product or construction.

The other parameter to evaluate is distribution (and the cost in health and death associated with that), as nuclear (and coal and natural gas) generating plants are highly concentrated installations generating massive voltage, while my installation peaks at 240 VAC and is distributed by a cable that runs from the roof to the basement. A distributed system with solar generation at or near the end user means much more freedom to access power anywhere you want. This is why solar installations are making huge headway in developing countries, places that just cannot be economically supplied by nuclear power.

Well there is a supply issue, right? There are lots more dead things that became fossil oil than living things that could become, with further processing, useable oil. I'm fine it - the UK has the top 3 largest biomass-electricity plants in the world. In fact Drax is the largest plant in Europe, and provides us with 5-10% of our power.

Of course, we have to import all that biomass (it's wood, incidentally) from other countries - and if those other countries followed our lead, we might not be able to do that....

Look into hemp, which is what I mentioned. Quick google:
http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm

Uses existing technology. Hemp grows faster than trees to produce the same energy, which of course is another method of converting solar energy into a usable product.

Did you ever investigate what happened to all the silicon tetrachloride that was produced to make your solar panels? In 2015, it was probably recycled, but it may still have been dumped. Even if you try other materials you still end having to use things like cadmium.

Still, it's difficult to get away from the dangers of hydrofluoric acid of which a LOT is used. It's possible to use other chemicals (which are themselves also toxic, but easier to handle) but business is business and low regulation nations are going to be able to sell their products cheaper.

Not worse than your standard computer and battery production and disposal is it? There are known risks that can involve standard operation procedures, typical of industry.

It should be pointed out that it can take about 2 years of continuous operation to pay back the energy needed to make solar panels. So assuming you installed them January 1st 2015, you're still several weeks from having saved the planet from anything.

Then there is amount of carbon pollution that occurs as a result of making them. Depending on where they were made you might not get a net carbon emission benefit until 2019.

Which I consider basically irrelevant, because all the costs\risks are up front and cease to accumulate once the panels are installed, unlike fossil fuel or nuclear generation.

Then you might consider possible damage caused by wind, rain and snow on your home; If a toxic chemical plant is hit by a natural disaster, that's an ecological disaster. If a toxic chemical transport ship has a spillage, it's an ecological disaster.

Like oil tankers and pipelines, they keep happening. But my panels, once installed, do not add to that risk nor experience it year after year.

This is all simplified, and it's certainly better than Coal and oil, but it's easy to think you know more than you do when the environmental costs are moved from the point of generation to point of manufacturing and maintenance.

I had a solar spill yesterday ... it was sunny all day. Wind rain and snow affect my house whether the panels are there or not -- they don't have any increased effect due to energy generation.

New technology developed every day takes care of your other concerns (new materials, simplified manufacturing), if it takes two years for payback that is a small drop in the bucket for the lifetime of the panels, something

So what about Nuclear Waste? It's incredibly compact and well contained, ...

And dangerous for billions of years? But there was a much more invasive way of using nuclear waste in Iraq with depleted uranium ammo ... one with long term effects for society there. You need to include that with your death count and your waste fields for solar panel materials.

... as opposed to just about all other toxic waste from all other methods. If we want to argue something like 'we can recycle waste products in solar power' then we can say the same for nuclear power only the improvements within our technological grasp are orders of magnitude greater.

Really? what's the waste product from my panels 5 years from now? 10 years? Does it have a half life?

Because of THE FEAR, nuclear waste is more heavily regulated and monitored than other waste. Unfortunately, that same fear means there is a lot of political stalemate over moving it around.

And I say it is legitimate wariness because accidents have happened and accidents will happen.

Curiously I regard this the same level of wariness as being around new toxic chemical plants and from industries like fracking and mining. Chemicals that can cause birth defects and poison people for years after it gets into the groundwater..

quote:
But when ingested (e.g. from ground water) it isn’t. According to the linear hypothesis, when consumed by a group of people, we expect about one extra cancer for each half-gram of plutonium swallowed. That is bad, but not a record-setter. Botulism toxin (found in poorly prepared mayonnaise) is a thousand times worse.

Wow. Just WOW. (to quote Faith).

I have cancer, and I would not wish that on one single person. That risk alone is reason enough for me to forego nuclear power.

Do you know more than most scientists?

And I haven't said that either.

Is your competence high enough to assess the facts correctly, or is your confidence a function of relative ignorance?

My competence is sufficient to recognize risks as listed and detailed by scientists, to understand them, and to decide when I don't want to take them, especially when there are alternatives without those risks.

Thank you for including the Dunning Kruger effect in your post, that made it more interesting.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2016 10:15 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 12-11-2016 6:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7388
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 24 of 30 (795350)
12-11-2016 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
12-11-2016 5:03 PM


Re: nuclear ignorance?
Discussion continues over at Message 4, The nuclear generation option

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2016 5:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 25 of 30 (796159)
12-23-2016 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 1.61803
12-06-2016 10:03 AM


Re: Picking advisors ...
Rudolph Guiliani in contention for Sec State. He is,imo, absolutely a bat shit crazy ideologue, the thought of him in that position makes me nervous.
Sarah Palin for any position is imo just nuts.

Looking back we can see that neither of these folks got picked for anything. It appears that some folks, and I'd add Romney and Gingrich to this list, were being toyed with. I have to give Sarah credit for being the first one of the bunch who figured out what the game was.

But to tie this to the topic, none of these guys figured out that they were incompetent for any of the positions. They all rated themselves highly.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 12-06-2016 10:03 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ramoss, posted 12-23-2016 10:14 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 26 of 30 (796173)
12-23-2016 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NoNukes
12-23-2016 2:50 PM


Re: Picking advisors ...
I will say, things are tough when Sylvester Stalone gets taped to head the National Endowment of the Arts, and it's the BEST choice Trump has made so far.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2016 2:50 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-23-2016 11:19 PM ramoss has not yet responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2016 11:37 PM ramoss has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1325
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 27 of 30 (796174)
12-23-2016 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ramoss
12-23-2016 10:14 PM


Re: Picking advisors ...
Sylvester Stalone gets taped to head the National Endowment of the Arts

Solid proof that Trump doesn't know shit about art......


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ramoss, posted 12-23-2016 10:14 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9333
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 28 of 30 (796175)
12-23-2016 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ramoss
12-23-2016 10:14 PM


Re: Picking advisors ...
I will say, things are tough when Sylvester Stalone gets taped to head the National Endowment of the Arts, and it's the BEST choice Trump has made so far.

Sly says, "no thanks".

quote:
"I am incredibly flattered to have been suggested to be involved with the National Endowment of the Arts,” Stallone said in a statement to People. “However I believe I could be more effective by bringing national attention to returning military personnel in an effort to find gainful employment, suitable housing and financial assistance these heroes respectfully deserve."

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ramoss, posted 12-23-2016 10:14 PM ramoss has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ramoss, posted 12-25-2016 11:04 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 29 of 30 (796226)
12-25-2016 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
12-23-2016 11:37 PM


Re: Picking advisors ...
Which show Sylvester Stallone has more brains and class that is shown by his movies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2016 11:37 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Kiko Brian 
Suspended Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 01-30-2017


Message 30 of 30 (798366)
02-02-2017 12:30 AM


Spam
spam removed

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017