New Linux Code of Conduct Revisions: CoC Committee Added Plus Interpretation & Mediator

[Sheshbazzar]

The problem with your theory is that you only have the freedom to be an asshole if nobody else is a aware of it. We all break that rule from time to time though. Being an asshole isn't the worst of it, being prejudiced is what the worst of it is.

Good, you at last come to the correct conclusion that non religious CoCs are hypocrisy, hence D. Richard Hipp's wisdom. For you can dress your thoughts with rosy words, but can't hide them from God. The lust to please men is unworthy of man for "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and *thy desire shall be to thy husband*, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3.16) If what the asshole says is false then you don't deserve him to vanish (save for *your* vanishing from his gaze) unless you devise a disproof. For how cryptocurrencies work after all? If you can't somehow outpace a blockchain tree longest, but dishonest, branch then stop participating altogether, otherwise you would be a despicable hypocrite allowing dishonest nodes to rule over you for filthy lucre's sake.

[rabcor]

The feeling is mutual. My point was that even when you're trying not to be sexist, you're still sexist.

You have a strange definition of sexist. I'm being objective; women are likelier to fall for and join in on SJW bullshit. Even my own fucking mother, falls for and joins in on their bullshit. It's the same kind of objective as men are likelier to go for jobs as construction workers or car mechanics than women, would that also be sexist to suggest to you? Or since we're on the subject of ideologies... Would it be sexist to state that men are likelier to be (or become) atheists than women? Actually this is appropriate for context, since social justice is more or less a religious cult.

The genders are not equal, there are differences between them that lead to these kinds of results. Women are better for some tasks, while men are better for others, women fall easier for some vices while men fall easier for others. Acknowledging this does not make you a sexist, it makes you a realist, something that you clearly are not.

[duby229]

Good, you at last come to the correct conclusion that non religious CoCs are hypocrisy, hence D. Richard Hipp's wisdom. For you can dress your thoughts with rosy words, but can't hide them from God. The lust to please men is unworthy of man for "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and *thy desire shall be to thy husband*, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3.16) If what the asshole says is false then you don't deserve him to vanish (save for *your* vanishing from his gaze) unless you devise a disproof. For how cryptocurrencies work after all? If you can't somehow outpace a blockchain tree longest, but dishonest, branch then stop participating altogether, otherwise you would be a despicable hypocrite allowing dishonest nodes to rule over you for filthy lucre's sake.

Oh god, I wish the creation story was never written. Or at minimum I wish people would just recognize it for the fiction that it really is.

EDIT: Would it blow your mind if I told you that the creation story told in Genesis is not just one story? It's actually 3 very different stories interwoven line by line into one. Ever wonder why it has so many contradictions? That's why. And that didn't even happen until after the Babylonian conquest of Isreal. Genesis was obviously written by Babylonian Jews writing down Babylonian stories.

[Sheshbazzar]

Oh god, I wish the creation story was never written. Or at minimum I wish people would just recognize it for the fiction that it really is.

EDIT: Would it blow your mind if I told you that the creation story told in Genesis is not just one story? It's actually 3 very different stories interwoven line by line into one. Ever wonder why it has so many contradictions? That's why. And that didn't even happen until after the Babylonian conquest of Isreal. Genesis was obviously written by Babylonian Jews writing down Babylonian stories.

And who told you that? Those archaeologists who happily "uncovered" and thereupon "deciphered" (an astonishing doublet) strange inscriptions by invented cultures long lost to the mists of times? You also *believe* in dinosaurs or in outer space do you not?
One should not prostitute one's *faith.* (What else do you *believe* in? Oh yes, that the universe is some 15 billion years old, right? You also *believe* that the sky isn't solid but merely blue because of ozone, yes? Let us not forget your *belief* in Darwinism. See? Infidels are *whores*)

[duby229]

And who told you that? Those archaeologists who happily "uncovered" and thereupon "deciphered" (an astonishing doublet) strange inscriptions by invented cultures long lost to the mists of times? You also *believe* in dinosaurs or in outer space do you not?
One should not prostitute one's *faith.* (What else do you *believe* in? Oh yes, that the universe is some 15 billion years old, right? You also *believe* that the sky isn't solid but merely blue because of ozone, yes? Let us not forget your *belief* in Darwinism. See? Infidels are *whores*)

Oh you got the scientific method all backwards, it doesn't have anything to do with "belief" at all. It's about trusting hypothesis in so far as it's been proved, but only until it's been disproved or improved. No belief required.

EDIT: You gotta appreciate the Zoroastrian influence on those Gnostic people. If the Zoroastrians hadn't influenced them Jesus never would've resurrected. But, I do believe the man actually lived (although not resurrected) and in fact his tomb was discovered and destroyed in 1981.

[Sheshbazzar]

Oh you got the scientific method all backwards, it doesn't have anything to do with "belief" at all. It's about trusting hypothesis in so far as it's been proved, but only until it's been disproved or improved. No belief required.

Well then, concerning outer space: http://americanmoon.org/VanAllen/Sci...nAllenBelt.pdf
Excerpts:

Along the way we launched a series of rockets - by carrying balloons - "rockoons." (The balloon lifts a small rocket to an altitude of 12 to 15 miles, whence the rocket carries a modest payload of instruments to a height of 60 to 70 miles.)

I can't believe that such a thing could go past peer review, and yet it did. Let's continue:

When the satellite went out to 500 to 600 miles. the apparent rate ascended rapidly and then dropped almost to zero. One day as we were puzzling over the first tapes from Explorer III McIllwain suggested the first plausible explanation for their peculiar readings. He had just been calibrating his rocket instruments, and called our attention to something that we all knew but had temporarily forgotten: A sufficiently high level of radiation can jam the counter and send the apparent counting rate to zero. We had discovered an enormously high level of radiation, not lack of it.

Up to the points at which the counter jammed, it showed counting rates more than 1000 times the theoretical expectation for cosmic rays.

The inner belt reaches its peak at about 2000 miles from the earth, the outer one at about 10000 miles. Beyond 10000 miles the radiation intensity diminishes steadily; it disappears almost completely beyond 40000 miles. The maximum intensity of radiation in each belt is about 25000 counts per second, equivalent to some 40000 particles per square centimeter per second.

Our measurements show that the maximum ration level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undertermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would only have an even chance of survival , the radiation belt obviously present an obstacle to space flight.

Yet they sent men to the moon 10 years later (take note of the rustic '60s hardware) and geostationary satellites, invented by *a science fiction author*, the famous Arthur C. Clarke, remain fully functional for decades in the midst of the 2nd radiation belt at ~22000 miles of altitude.

Speaking of the moon, is it not remarkable that the only face it discovers to us is *flat* while the one no one ever saw is rotund? https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/31/5...oks-like-lemon
Shouldn't the earth's gravity pull that moon face towards us, seeing that we're told that the moon's "gravity" causes both high tides and earthquakes down here?
What about constellations that haven't changed their shapes since the times of Ptolemy who himself, for his Almagest, relied on 500 years older documents?
How is it that daylight opacifies the sky so that no star is seen from earth but at the same time the earth, as shown from outer space, reveals clouds, continents and even the great wall of China? Shouldn't earth look like Neptune or Uranus, i.e., an opaque blue ball?

[duby229]

Well then, concerning outer space: http://americanmoon.org/VanAllen/Sci...nAllenBelt.pdf
Excerpts:

I can't believe that such a thing could go past peer review, and yet it did. Let's continue:






Yet they sent men to the moon 10 years later (take note of the rustic '60s hardware) and geostationary satellites, invented by *a science fiction author*, the famous Arthur C. Clarke, remain fully functional for decades in the midst of the 2nd radiation belt at ~22000 miles of altitude.

Speaking of the moon, is it not remarkable that the only face it discovers to us is *flat* while the one no one ever saw is rotund? https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/31/5...oks-like-lemon
Shouldn't the earth's gravity pull that moon face towards us, seeing that we're told that the moon's "gravity" causes both high tides and earthquakes down here?
What about constellations that haven't changed their shapes since the times of Ptolemy who himself, for his Almagest, relied on 500 years older documents?
How is it that daylight opacifies the sky so that no star is seen from earth but at the same time the earth, as shown from outer space, reveals clouds, continents and even the great wall of China? Shouldn't earth look like Neptune or Uranus, i.e., an opaque blue ball?

You do realize that nearly every problem you posted there is solved by knowledge of quantum mechanics right? And literally everything else you mentioned is solved with computers. What you don't think Ptolemy had access to computers?

[Sheshbazzar]

You do realize that nearly every problem you posted there is solved by knowledge of quantum mechanics right? And literally everything else you mentioned is solved with computers. What you don't think Ptolemy had access to computers?

I didn't express myself directly enough, no doubt on account of CoCs. Listed above were contradictory statements which the Scientific Community (TM) pours at you proles, that you may keep scuttling in the dark and labyrinthine gutters of ignorance like the cockroaches that you are. The scientists are a wall of confusion shielding the concealed wise elders from the grotesque masses, lest knowledge should hover you upwards, menacing the mysterious Levites' regency, for "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." (Matthew 5.15)

They said to you that the Van Allen belts*, around the earth, dashed both things and men to tiny bits. By '64 a geostationary satellite was diving in the outer belt and a mere 10 years after the Scientific American article, men flew unscathed through both belts to the moon and back. These "Arthur C. Clarke" satellites work flawlessly in impossible conditions for decades. Contradictions.

The moon is flat after all, as to the rounded part, nobody ever observed it, therefore it doesn't exist, which is what I believe and so should any atheist, for my ground is exactly the same supporting the latter's disbelief in God's existence.

* Scientists *are* the Van Allen belts, your gaolers. Like the belts, they're a fiction.

[duby229]

I didn't express myself directly enough, no doubt on account of CoCs. Listed above were contradictory statements which the Scientific Community (TM) pours at you proles, that you may keep scuttling in the dark and labyrinthine gutters of ignorance like the cockroaches that you are. The scientists are a wall of confusion shielding the concealed wise elders from the grotesque masses, lest knowledge should hover you upwards, menacing the mysterious Levites' regency, for "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." (Matthew 5.15)

They said to you that the Van Allen belts*, around the earth, dashed both things and men to tiny bits. By '64 a geostationary satellite was diving in the outer belt and a mere 10 years after the Scientific American article, men flew unscathed through both belts to the moon and back. These "Arthur C. Clarke" satellites work flawlessly in impossible conditions for decades. Contradictions.

The moon is flat after all, as to the rounded part, nobody ever observed it, therefore it doesn't exist, which is what I believe and so should any atheist, for my ground is exactly the same supporting the latter's disbelief in God's existence.

* Scientists *are* the Van Allen belts, your gaolers. Like the belts, they're a fiction.

What a sad man. It's called quantum mechanics my brotha. If you don't think so, that's truly weird.

[duby229]

EDIT: Oh and bro, the moon leaves a round shadow on the earth, even the Hellenes 2500 years ago recognized from the Earth and moons shadows that both of these celestial bodies are spherical. This point really is just basic geometry. In modern times a ten year old could figure that out.