So Then someone posts:
"No its not, I am speaking from 20years ago when I used it and worked for it"
This type of arguement is used quite often. The whole "I am speaking from a position of authoity as I have worked with, in, on this object before... 20 years ago." Its like time has stopped since they interacted with the system because it couldn't possibly be any different now. In spite of the fact that e4vidence to the contrary is dealt with on a daily basis by EVERYONE in the world. But no I am comming from knowing first hand how this works.
This would be exactly like if my father, who, 25years ago supplied insurance for a family of four, on a single income, looking at me and saying,
"Why can't you pay for insurance for your family today?"When I am making comparable income to his with a four person family to support.
Of course I then have to respond asking for clarification if this was actually the position present was this person actually idiotic enough to really present this as an argument? Then the reply comes back
"your coming off as a dick, My argument still stands, sorry if you are confused by it"
What gets me is how these people actually believe their position is still valid in the light of their information being outdated (20years in this case). Not to long ago I got directed to a website maintain by a Daivd or dave, something like "atheism: is it real?" One of the arguments that I immediately caught was about some archaeology where Angiosperms where fround in a layer of sediment WAY predating know evolution of angiosperm development. Upon further inspection this bad archaeology work was detected and PUBLISHED in 1960!!!
But they continue to cite the article as if it is some mysterious error that has caught science with its perverbial pants down...
BULLSHIT... After some SIMPLE research one can find a rebuttal of the work showing it most likely transient deposits REFORMED into the layer by TIME!!!
Yet we are expected to respect their opinions and arguments without sarcasm and cynicism? Really? Seriously? Why the hell should I? Especially, AMAZINGLY, when you know the evidence which is vetted and thus supported, when presented to these individuals is FLAT OUT DENIED as legitimate evidence, OR just completely ignored. How the hell can any of these people be taken seriously by anyone. Yet they are, and some of these people are our congress people making decisions for us every day.