|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html
Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous. Thanks, Magilla |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
The small number of onlookers at that point began to snap their heads
apprehensively from one to the other and back to the bot. And then, at 4 hours and 15 minutes into the process, a second feature emerged -- another embedded marble -- and the look on the collective face made it clear that, down to the core, each one of them felt that for none of them to have ever been born would have been best. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
Though we'd all like to think it came from their hearts, it was external
circumstance that finally forced Magilla Gorilla and Hitler to come together in common cause at last, after all these years. "It's different when you get to know someone face to face," said Hitler. "All the group hatred melts away and you see he's just like you -- so OK, maybe he comes from a race of people that listens to ****ty music and has bad haircuts, but blood and guts and sinews and bile and fear and flesh and gristle and hard throbbing cocks and mucus and smegma trump music and hair any day." He put his arm around Magilla and Magilla reciprocated. But that was just the photo op before they got down to the serious business of saving the world, saving humanity, from the greatest threat it had ever known: me. "We both wanted a better world," Magilla said to Hitler once they were alone together with their aides Einstein, Da Vinci, Galileo, Sandy Koufax, Sunny Day Real Estate, Velocity Girl, Napoleon, Tim Berners-Lee, Marvin Minsky and Kurt Schwitters. "We just had different ways of going about it based on our different native temperaments and our differing early childhood experiences," Hitler finished Magilla's thought, as he would often do with Magilla and vice versa during the 2 weeks we spent living with them and their assistants and their high-tech equipment, making this documentary. Bangladesh had fronted the millions for the state of the art conference room they were meeting in -- the 360 degree surround-vision video walls could be split into 4096 million different individual views of anything or any combination of things anywhere anytime at any scale from infra-nano to ultra-cosmic, and images could be individually arranged into any conceptual structure known to man -- like the binary branching tree structure or the uhhh, uhhhh, the uhhh, you know, all those other structures that man is always putting things into in order to pretend cognition works when we all know it's just a ****ing lie -- in fact, the FIRST ****ing lie. Whatever. The point is that Hitler and Magilla had all existence and all knowledge at their fingertips to aid them in figuring out how to stop the most profound threat to man and cosmos in all human history, me. "I'm not into all this video whiz-bang technology crap," said Magilla. "Neither am I," said Hitler. "It's just a cover for man's true ignorance." "And a side track," said Magilla. "Nobody solves problems. Instead, they build a TOOL to solve the problem and then nobody uses it." "Or they use it for the opposite of what it was intended for," said Hitler. "But let's get down to business. We may have only a few weeks before this guy figures it all out." But for all their great and powerful hearts, they didn't realize I was in there with them as part of the crew making this documentary. I had written a program that searched the internet and peoples' hard drives looking for an optimal way to exterminate the universe. When it came up with an idea -- any idea -- it immediately tried to implement it -- by doing massive email bombing or devising online ad campaigns designed to either directly force the idea into physical being, or bring in people who could. Using online commerce and online payment systems, the program was able to set up meetings and conferences all over the world on its own, and book travel for well-credentialed participants. It could rent factory space and set up and pay a work force to build complex devices it designed with off-the-shelf CAD-CAM software based on the assimilation and correlation of voluminous scientific data, facts and theory off the Princeton, MIT, and MTV websites. And as each idea failed miserably to achieve not only its OWN ends, but ANY ****ing ends whatsoever, the program modified it ever so slightly and sent it back out to try again -- even as it was generating newer, more off-the-wall, more drug-crazed psychotic ideas and implementing them each femtosecond. As a result, I had lots of free time and so could afford to be here watching Magilla and Hitler and writing this on the side, while my purpose bored effortlessly ceaselessly forward on its own, tearing a near-infinite number of paths through the sphinctral substrate of universal computation, communication and memory. And in my position as assistant sound man I knew that, purely as a rote function of my trade, I would be unresistably mandated, sooner or later, to point an index finger to the sky above and say: "Uhhh, could you hold that thought a second, Adolph -- I've gotta change the tape." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second
opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a positive manner, and make good decisions with the additional information. There is no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done. 2. Outside of sports, a person is innocent until proven guilty as the process of proving guilt or innocence is not perfect and is subject to opininon. 3. In cycling, a person is always guilty until proven innocent. a. each cylist acceptances the paradigm of guilt until proven innocent with the reciprical obligation that: i. the people and processes that determine guilt or innocence are always be either perfectly correct in their processes, or their conclusion is absolutely false. "MagillaGorilla" wrote in message news http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous. Thanks, Magilla |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
MagillaGorilla wrote: http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Well, the science might be bad, when you have tests that require status (or maybe just some notoriety g) within the scientific community for your reading to be taken seriously-- as compared to some flunky lab tech, for instance. "Get me a positive reader in here!". They violated their own procedural rules. The same tech running the B test, with the identity of the ****er or bleeder known to all and sundry, opens the door to personal feelings influencing the "reading". Not to mention all the bad stuff that came to light with just one lab: http://www.chron.com/content/chronic...lab/index.html Of course, sometimes it works out OK, like if you, say, attend Duke, and it only takes a year or so, plus who knows how much money, to more or less get off, with your reputation more or less intact, after a "we know they are guilty" manhandling by the (excuse me) proper authorities. Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. Apples/oranges. One reason there isn't a B sample test is because the insurance companies don't want to pay anything, even their just obligations. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous. When they drag you in, which of your rights are you willing to give up? (Don't claim to be innocent if that makes you look bad, BTW) --D-y |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
xzzy wrote:
1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a positive manner, and make good decisions with the additional information. There is no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done. Not when you test positive in an employee drug test, ass****. Also, the athlete is allowed to have their expert present to ensure the integrity of the B-sample test. This is comparable to having a second (and third) opinion wrapped up in one. 2. Outside of sports, a person is innocent until proven guilty as the process of proving guilt or innocence is not perfect and is subject to opininon. And so are athletes, ass****. Floyd (or any other athlete) has not been found guilty of anything yet. That will be decided by the CAS, which is considered the same as a court of law. The CAS affords athletes due process protection. 3. In cycling, a person is always guilty until proven innocent. Give me an example of a cyclist who was found guilty before their CAS hearing, and if so by whom? Good luck finding these examples because they don't exist, you dumbass. a. each cylist acceptances the paradigm of guilt until proven innocent with the reciprical obligation that: i. the people and processes that determine guilt or innocence are always be either perfectly correct in their processes, or their conclusion is absolutely false. What the **** are you talking about? "MagillaGorilla" wrote in message news http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. So the idea that this breach means the test was wrong is ludicrous. Thanks, Magilla |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message news http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation. Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean posts. Phil H |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
Phil Holman wrote:
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message news http://trustbut.blogspot.com/2006/12...-tbv-rant.html Just because the same tech ran both the A and B sample, it doesn't equate to the science being "bad." Remember something before you jump off that lemming cliff: when you go to the doctor and get a lab test done, there isn't even a ****ing B-sample and nobody calls that "unethical" and asks the lab director to be fired. You people are all idiots. Having the A and B samples analyzed by different techs is a WADA rule that was broken, but isn't even used in conventional labroatory work for cancer screenings or even for employment drug tests. Cerebral vomit. Medical screening tests do not rely on a single result for a diagnosis and unlike drugs, the disease sticks around for more accurate testing and confirmation. Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro......, I mean posts. Phil H So if you get a positive test for HIV, hepatitis, herpes, strep throat, meningitis, or a positive result from a cancerous biopsy, you're telling me the doctor doesn't go by those lab results, but instead chases some red herring that's based upon some subjective observation? Yeah, okay. Sure. Nice troll. Here's hoping 2007 raises the quality of your tro...I mean posts. Bitch. Magilla |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
you people are idiots
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message ... xzzy wrote: 1. When being treated by doctors, 'citizens' have the option of a second opinion. All doctors I have ever known understand the process in a positive manner, and make good decisions with the additional information. There is no right or wrong, there is only let's get this done. Not when you test positive in an employee drug test, ass****. Also, the athlete is allowed to have their expert present to ensure the integrity of the B-sample test. This is comparable to having a second (and third) opinion wrapped up in one. When I had to take a random test for work, the way my sample was handled for submitting and sealing the sample was so poor, there is no way it could have held up in court if challenged. I doubt many techs involved in the handling of a sample are trained properly. On the other hand, very few people being tested would know to recognize errors on the part of the tech. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Idiots | heed | UK | 54 | May 4th 06 08:46 AM |
NASCAR "stars" Jeff Gordon and Kurt Busch confirmed they are idiots when they blocked people on the lead lap in Texas. | [email protected] | Racing | 28 | April 16th 06 08:00 PM |
NASCAR "stars" Jeff Gordon and Kurt Busch confirmed they are idiots when they blocked people on the lead lap in Texas. | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | April 12th 06 01:03 PM |
NASCAR "stars" Jeff Gordon and Kurt Busch confirmed they are idiots when they blocked people on the lead lap in Texas. | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | April 11th 06 10:45 PM |
NASCAR "stars" Jeff Gordon and Kurt Busch confirmed they are idiots when they blocked people on the lead lap in Texas. | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | April 11th 06 01:07 PM |