COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Ze-man]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

[mrwoogieman]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

[Ze-man]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

 

 

No.. no you absolutely can , I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?

[Zonker]

Thanks be to L. Ron for Google.

 

I had no idea who Matt was for a while there.

[october]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

 

 

No.. no you absolutely can , I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?

 

The errors in grammar and syntax in the above quotes are mind boggling. I think both of you should spend some time putting together coherent sentences, because neither of you are getting your "point" across well at all. Half of it reads like total gibberish. It sounds like English translated into Japanese, translated back into English.

 

[mrwoogieman]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

 

 

No.. no you absolutely can , I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?

 

The errors in grammar and syntax in the above quotes are mind boggling. I think both of you should spend some time putting together coherent sentences, because neither of you are getting your "point" across well at all. Half of it reads like total gibberish. It sounds like English translated into Japanese, translated back in to English.

 

 

Matt, but here's the point. What is the ideal scene for life. Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs.

[Zonker]

[shrunkenhead]

I don't believe this link was posted yet, so here goes. The first item is about this alleged earth growing bidness:

 

http://www.crank.net/geology.html

 

I love how they talk about "slabs" in the article, followed by the catchphrase "I speak the lingo, I am one of you."

 

Look, no disrespect meant to Mr. Adams. You draw a mean Batman. But Copernicus you ain't. While I'm all for being interdisciplinary ....c'mon now.

 

While I can understand totally why Vincent went ahead with the Adams show, it must justifiably irk him a little that he had to pander to this stuff (not to make assumptions about ya Vincent--that's just how I'd feel if it was my show). While I thank Vincent for doing the show and getting one wacky hour in the archives for posterity, I wouldn't have blamed him in the least if he had told Neal where to stick it and canned the show idea. Vincent, you do a great show and don't need to pander to egotism and other such nonsense. You've got the respect of so many in the hobby, and deservedly so---you'll get good guests and good discussion regardless.

 

It's just rude to come on somebody else's show and pull this. It's like walking into a friend's house and demanding they cook you dinner. They probably would have offerred you something, but you didn't need to be a jerk about it.

 

And it makes matters worse that it's this pseudoscientific drivel. What next, astral projection?

 

Sorry to those of you who feel academics don't know how to do research and think creatively at the same time, but I couldn't disagree more. And you simply can't balk at scholarship that you haven't read, discussed, maybe even written about, etc. That's what scholarship is---namely, creating an actual dialogue with other people. Not just spouting off about whatever the hell you're sure is right.

[october]

I agree with everything you just said.

[Ze-man]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

 

 

No.. no you absolutely can , I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?

 

The errors in grammar and syntax in the above quotes are mind boggling. I think both of you should spend some time putting together coherent sentences, because neither of you are getting your "point" across well at all. Half of it reads like total gibberish. It sounds like English translated into Japanese, translated back in to English.

 

 

Matt, but here's the point. What is the ideal scene for life. Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs.

 

But you're now telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences.

[selegue]

This "expanding planet" hypothesis "merely" requires that we ignore conservation of mass/energy -- without which no other science (as we know it today) works.

 

Since Neal has no first-hand experimental evidence, all of the following criteria don't fit, but several of them certainly fit to a T.

 

sidebar: Symptoms of Pathological Science

 

Irving Langmuir1 has identified several recurring patterns in cases of pathological science:

 

* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

 

* The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

 

* Theories outside the field's paradigm are suggested.

 

* Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.

 

* The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

 

To these we may add the following:

 

* The remarkable result is specific for a "special" system.

 

* Some special technique or equipment is involved.

 

* The result requires a stunning departure from the paradigms that fully determine results in all other comparable systems, including those studied by the authors. -- N.J.T.

 

1. Langmuir, Irving (transcribed and ed., Robert N. Hall). Pathological science. Physics Today 42 (Oct. 1989): 44.

 

You may want to look at Nick Turro's full comments:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html

(he does acknowledge that paradigm-breaking science can occur)

or you may want to ignore that link if you actually believe that Neal knows more about geology and planetary science than thousands of people who spent years studying science and devoted their entire lives to understanding the phenomena that he approaches from a pictorial point of view.

 

Jack

[Aman619]

well. I agree up to a point. Many "proven" and accepted scientific theories later are proven wrong as new theories take hold or new evidence is unearthed. Neal hopes his therory to fit that pattern. And there IS a deeply entrenched scientific leaning towards closing ranks against outsiders who who question their accepted tenets.

 

Neither of which says Neal is right or wrong.... but as a "heretic" he is in good company historically, at least.

 

one thing however, we all say seeing is believing and perhaps Neal's BEST evidence for his theory is in those animations that show the Earth growing and shrinking with the continents all neatly folding into one another. And if you look closely, some part sthat DONT fit as they are presently shaped on Earth conveniently bend stretch and contort themselves to fit the gaps. Doesnt that bother others? If you cna greate a 3D animation, its duck soup to make this happen and voila!! WOW it all fits!

[selegue]

Thanks be to L. Ron for Google.

 

I had no idea who Matt was for a while there.

 

Thanks for the tip. I figured it was a board in-joke!

 

Jack

[Rip]

A big problem here (with Adams theory) is that Pangaea isn't the first supercontinent.

Supercontinents form in cycles, coming together and breaking apart again

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent

[mrwoogieman]

Thanks be to L. Ron for Google.

 

I had no idea who Matt was for a while there.

 

Thanks for the tip. I figured it was a board in-joke!

 

Jack

 

Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt--

[Sal]

so wait, we're positing that the Earth grows somehow? what, am i to believe that magma is the second substance on earth that can expand when it cools, the other being water?

[goldust40]

 

MY BRAIN HURTS!!!!!!!

[Batfiend-migration]

I know it is not great for guys who want to hear him talk about funny books

 

Come on, let's not get all condescending about "funny books". When you've got a show called COMIC ZONE, then expect a little flack when some whacko spends half his time expounding a "Growing Earth" theory best left to the Science Channel.

 

It's all about the target audience and understanding why most people are tuning in.

 

Is it to hear about comics or strange scientific theories? If it's the latter, then BIZARRE SCIENCE might be a better title for the show.

 

Its' no more wackier then your market crash theories which you continue to espouse and continue to try and jam down everybodies throat and which you don't base on any level of fact. Give me Adams anyday of the week.

[Aman619]

[Red Hook]

And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.

 

Sorry, are you attacking me? I thought I did a good job of sitting on the fence, while defending Adams' right to propose his theory. Which, at the risk of repeating myself, is both elegant and interesting.

 

 

You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's -- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.

 

I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.

 

 

you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.

 

And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?

 

 

No.. no you absolutely can , I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?

 

The errors in grammar and syntax in the above quotes are mind boggling. I think both of you should spend some time putting together coherent sentences, because neither of you are getting your "point" across well at all. Half of it reads like total gibberish. It sounds like English translated into Japanese, translated back in to English.

 

 

Matt, but here's the point. What is the ideal scene for life. Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs.

 

But you're now telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences.

 

Matt, one thing you should know......From the moment I met him it just felt like I'd known him forever. I was blown away. He's the most incredible man. He's so generous and kind, and he helps so many people, and, um, he makes me laugh like I've never laughed, and he's a great friend.… He and I will always be in our honeymoon phase.… He is the most incredible man in the world.