According to many members who read the thread concerning the ice bergs, i have no intelligence.
Comon you guys... Are you really going to base my intelligence on that particular thread? I thought the problem was natural. I knew that Antarctica was on land, but i assumed that half the ice, or maybe more covering it was submerged in water, and the rest peaked above water.
What is sooo thickle about that?
Plus, as i have already said, i've been able to answer questions on physics that have gone right over peoples heads round here, yet i am still considered, even by spuriousmonkey that i haven't had an education...
Do you all not think you are being a bit harsh?

Why not start a whiny thread about it? Better still, complete an online IQ test and post the results.

Do you all not think you are being a bit harsh?
Not at all thicko.

If Antarctica were below sea level, it wouldn't be considered land, would it?

Read-Only was trying to tell you to just learn about it like he did:

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=google&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I knew that Antarctica was on land, but i assumed that half the ice, or maybe more covering it was submerged in water, and the rest peaked above water.
So how can the ice in Antarctica be on land and be submerged in water at the same time?

What is sooo thickle about that?
Nuff said.

Plus, as i have already said, i've been able to answer questions on physics that have gone right over peoples heads round here
Nope, you've given your *cough* individual interpretation.

yet i am still considered, even by spuriousmonkey that i haven't had an education...
Do you all not think you are being a bit harsh?
Not just spuriousmonkey dear chap.

So how can the ice in Antarctica be on land and be submerged in water at the same time?
Quite easily if it's on land submerged in the water.

I'm not saying he's right - I'm just saying you're wrong.

Well, thanks everyone for that incoherent set of results.
Nickelodeon - well, if that's the case, then i'll be equally as harsh on you if you ever miscalculate somethin.
Redarmy... i don't know what to say. I can't quite fix you yet.
Spidergoat... Well i don't know. If th ice was still on land, wouldn't it be still land, despite it beig submerged?
Oli... Whatever.

Why fix something that ain't broke?

Quite easily if it's on land submerged in the water.
If that were the case then Antarctica wouldn't be classed as being "on land" (his own words) unless we also count, say, the entire sea bed as being "on land".

I'm not saying he's right - I'm just saying you're wrong.
Well you would, wouldn't you?

The problem isn't that you didn't know any better to begin with (although it is a bit on the derp side...), the problem is how you dealt with the people who explained to you over and over and over again where you were mistaken.

And now the problem is the whiney thread about it.
Muaha!

Some people.

Sounds pretty minor... nothing to do with your ability. What's worse is you apparently took Spuriousmonkey seriously. Link to thread?

If that were the case then Antarctica wouldn't be classed as being "on land" (his own words) unless we also count, say, the entire sea bed as being "on land".

The sea-bed isn't on land, but the sea is. Where are we going with this?

Holiday Inn?
I knew that Antarctica was on land
Antractica, he knew, was on land, but assumed that the ice on top of Antarctica was under water...
WTF?

Dope it out. :m:

The problem isn't that you didn't know any better to begin with (although it is a bit on the derp side...), the problem is how you dealt with the people who explained to you over and over and over again where you were mistaken.

And now the problem is the whiney thread about it.
Muaha!

Some people.

Yes i will whine about it. I don't see how my education has anything to do with the actual question. If anything, i thought the question was legit, as all questions go. And of course i faught the position. I would expect anyone else to do the same, if they thought a particular thing. :shrug:

Well, like I said before, sucks to be you.

The problem isn't that you didn't know any better to begin with (although it is a bit on the derp side...), the problem is how you dealt with the people who explained to you over and over and over again where you were mistaken.

And now the problem is the whiney thread about it.
Muaha!

Some people.

Precisely!!! Any and all of us can be wrong at times but it takes a pretty thick head to CONTINUE to refuse facts AND to not even do a bit of basic research on his own - which was suggested several times!

And then to start crying about it? Sheesh!!

Damn guys. He'll be just fine.

Precisely!!! Any and all of us can be wrong at times but it takes a pretty thick head to CONTINUE to refuse facts AND to not even do a bit of basic research on his own - which was suggested several times!

And then to start crying about it? Sheesh!!

Patronizing and hypocritical. I've seen the quantum zoo round here try and defend statements that have no ground on a scientififc basis, and still continue to argue...

Patronizing and hypocritical. I've seen the quantum zoo round here try and defend statements that have no ground on a scientififc basis, and still continue to argue...

Just get over it man, dont act all butt hurt if your wrong or people disagree, suck it up and move on.

Just get over it man, dont act all butt hurt if your wrong or people disagree, suck it up and move on.

After looking at the thread it I don't see the problem with him mentioning an opportunity to improve the low-quality of communication that went on there.

BTW, I love Read-Only's many contributions, but he reminds me of my grumpy physics professor ;)

Patronizing and hypocritical. I've seen the quantum zoo round here try and defend statements that have no ground on a scientififc basis, and still continue to argue...

Perhaps in some case, yes. But not in mine nor that of several other people. If someone tells me that I'm wrong, I quickly pasue and go recheck my facts (something you NEVER did in that thread!). And based on what I find, I will return and either apologize for having been wrong if that's the case, or press on full steam ahead while at the same time presenting what I found that supports my position (which you also didn't bother doing).

''f someone tells me that I'm wrong, I quickly pasue and go recheck my facts (something you NEVER did in that thread!).''

I doubt that you have never sided an arguement without going through the neccessery checks... especially if you thought you might have been right. We are all victims to that at least once or twice in our lives.
What i do find increadible, is that i did check the internet, and i couldn't find a single site displaying the information i required. I had to wait until someone provided the information for me...

Welcome to the real world.

http://www.gapingvoid.com/11444661477.jpg

:-)

You see Reiku, they now feel so much smarter at your expense—and that's a little something extra they've pinched into their piggy banks.

''You see Reiku, they now feel so much smarter at your expense—and that's a little something extra they've pinched into their piggy banks.''

Maybe. Thing is, i simply don't understand why...

''f someone tells me that I'm wrong, I quickly pasue and go recheck my facts (something you NEVER did in that thread!).''

I doubt that you have never sided an arguement without going through the neccessery checks... especially if you thought you might have been right. We are all victims to that at least once or twice in our lives.
What i do find increadible, is that i did check the internet, and i couldn't find a single site displaying the information i required. I had to wait until someone provided the information for me...

Then perhaps you should put a little effort into improving your online searching skills. That doesn't require a degree in geology, either.

i dont think you are stupid :)
it was just a misconception, can happen to anyone

I pull a reiku every once in a while


... pull a reiku, haha


... sorry :P

i dont think you are stupid :)
it was just a misconception, can happen to anyone

I pull a reiku every once in a while


... pull a reiku, haha


... sorry :P

Voice of reason here. I advise some round here to take a page out of her book.

Seriously.

Welcome to the real world.

http://www.gapingvoid.com/11444661477.jpg

I care lots!

After looking at the thread it I don't see the problem with him mentioning an opportunity to improve the low-quality of communication that went on there.

BTW, I love Read-Only's many contributions, but he reminds me of my grumpy physics professor ;)

Why, thank you, Exhumed.:) Sorry about the unpleasant memories, though. In real life I'm actually not nearly as grumpy as I appear here. Most of what you've seen has been the result of dealing with young whippersnapper who think they know FAR more than they really do. That's one of the very few things that get to me (others are cheating, lying and stealing) and make me seem to loose my true grandfatherly persona.

I can tell you truthfully that all my family, grandkids and friends enjoy the time they spend with me. You might wonder why. The reason is that they are all smart enough to ask questions when they don't know something instead of just running off at the mouth with a bunch of nonsense and TELLING everyone the way they THINK it is (with no basis for it).

I've no doubt that there are those here who might read this and won't believe I'm really like that. And I have no problem with that either - because they, too, don't know what they're talking about.;)

Do you all not think you are being a bit harsh?

No. Someone corrected you early on in that thread and you just went on. Instead of checking up on it. Which would have been a normal response.

We can all be wrong. And if someone points out that we are wrong you have the responsibility to check your own facts. If two people correct you the urgency increases to check your facts. If three people have to correct you, you are being just plain thick.

All you needed to to was to type in one word in wikipedia to check your facts.

Hence the responsibility lies entirely with you.

http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07402/Scold.jpg

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jxvetM7uqms

http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07402/Scold.jpg

the one kneeling looks like a real bitch. She probably gave all the other's boyfriend a nasty STD and now they are upset about the excessive itching of their genitals.

Context is everything. thirst is nothing.

Big shit.

According to many members who read the thread concerning the ice bergs, i have no intelligence.
Comon you guys... Are you really going to base my intelligence on that particular thread? I thought the problem was natural. I knew that Antarctica was on land, but i assumed that half the ice, or maybe more covering it was submerged in water, and the rest peaked above water.
What is sooo thickle about that?
Plus, as i have already said, i've been able to answer questions on physics that have gone right over peoples heads round here, yet i am still considered, even by spuriousmonkey that i haven't had an education...
Do you all not think you are being a bit harsh?

hey reiku,

dont worry about it man!!

the guys were probably just breaking your balls or something!!!

As i said i came out with the same theory a few months ago, and it got bom,bed out too.

But you listen to too much Mike Parry!!!

cheers
zak

I like the analogy... but please. I'm not a girl... oh gee whizz - britneys song just came to my head there! ERGHH! I hate that song!

now you lot

i dotn want any more messing with Reiku,

he is a good guy, so if you mess with him you mess with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God bless a million wishes on your success... This site still has surprises for me...

now you lot

i dotn want any more messing with Reiku,

he is a good guy, so if you mess with him you mess with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what does 'dotn' mean?

what does 'dotn' mean?

Dear Mr Monkey.

As you know it was a typo!!!

i meant 'dont'

Hows it going man??

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

Go have a bannana

Dear Mr Monkey.

As you know it was a typo!!!

i meant 'dont'

Hows it going man??

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

what's 'dont'?

Go have a bannana
Banana is spelt with 2 'n's you moron!

*Mutters in disbelief

Soz... typo mate... yu knwo, yuo haev ot maek a fwe now adn agian... lol

what's 'dont'?

give me a break Mr Monkey!!!

or i will sort you out later dont worry about that young man!!!

dont

vot?

vot?

you cheeeeeeky monkey you!!!

i will get you if i can be bothered

Give the monkey what it deserves! A weekend in the jail... oh, i mean... the zoo... sorry spurious...

:-) NEH... I'm sure you are really cool... Spurious... I was only joking... really.

The threat of jail time is a means to control the behaviour of the large subset of the population. Needless to say the career criminal or professional monkey will not feel threatened by jail time as such, and merely try to minimize the risk of such unjust 'punishment'

So... Bye bye to half the population then?

Go have a bannana

My cousin from Limerick in Ireland used to call it a Pinnana.

So... Bye bye to half the population then?

I cannot follow the logic displayed in this remark that looks like it should conclude an argument that comes before it, and unfortunately this preceding argument was lost in time and space, and possibly, reality.

No... Down a worm hole, threaded with exotic matters, which excite me so much, i get a hard on...

Reiku
There's no doubt that you are in the top 10% of posters on this site.
The fact that you are drawing flak from some of the old soldiers is proof of it.

I'm more like a maggot than a soldier.

I'm more like a maggot than a soldier.

Coming straight from the monkeys Mouth!!!

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
land
–noun
Any part of the earth's surface not covered by a body of water; the part of the earth's surface occupied by continents and islands.

----

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Green·land
–noun
A self-governing island belonging to Denmark, located NE of North America: the largest island in the world. 55,558; ab. 844,000 sq. mi. (2,186,000 sq. km); over 700,000 sq. mi. (1,800,000 sq. km) icecapped. Capital: Godthåb.

----

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Ant·arc·ti·ca
–noun
the continent surrounding the South Pole: almost entirely covered by an ice sheet. ab. 5,000,000 sq. mi. (12,950,000 sq. km).

----

http://www.enmos.eu/worldmap.jpg

----

I'm not saying that you are stupid but you might want to get such basic and commonly known facts right before using them to make a point.
To be honest though, I was really surprised that someone didn't know that Antarctica and Greenland are landmasses. Antarctica is even a continent.

He knew that it was land...

....land that was 'underwater'..........

like atlantis!

He knew that it was land...

Land that is under water is not defined as 'land'.

land
–noun
Any part of the earth's surface NOT covered by a body of water; the part of the earth's surface occupied by continents and islands.

Which is precisely what shows he knew it was. He said that there is some above water... Reiku, they've made their own equally minuscule mistakes (but worse, since there was some criticism involved), have at them!

He thought it was for the most part like a giant iceberg with only the tip showing, I believe.

Wait a second. Antarctica is on land? Shit...

The US owns all of the land under its coastal waters.

Correct. I'm glad people can visualize my stupid mistake.

The arctic is a large land mass with much ice floating over it on a layer of water.

Land that is under water is not defined as 'land'.

land
–noun
Any part of the earth's surface NOT covered by a body of water; the part of the earth's surface occupied by continents and islands.
I dispute this.

"The merchant ship gooseneck ran aground last week before it even left port, but managed to slide to it's destination thanks to a thin layer of water covering the intervening land" witnesses said.

So... Reiku was right? :p

So... Reiku was right? :p
I'm just doing my best to support the poor guy.

I meant this part: "The arctic is a large land mass with much ice floating over it on a layer of water." Which is more or less what he is saying.

I meant this part: "The arctic is a large land mass with much ice floating over it on a layer of water." Which is more or less what he is saying.
Err... yea. Sure.

Err... yea. Sure.

Antarctica is a continent, it's above water and covered in ice. The ice on Antarctica is therefore entirely above water (on land).
I don't see what the difficulty is here... :shrug:

Reiku said that Antarctica itself was under water, which is false.

So i was right? Gee Whizz... i'm confused... totally retroretarded...

So i was right? Gee Whizz... i'm confused... totally retroretarded...

No you were not, please research the matter and see for yourself.

Well... ok... its just that the recent view was that i may hence i [MAY] have had a point... if not... its cool... ive already apologized.

Antarctica is a continent, it's above water and covered in ice. The ice on Antarctica is therefore entirely above water (on land).
I don't see what the difficulty is here... :shrug:

Reiku said that Antarctica itself was under water, which is false.

You are wrong too. Parts of the land stick out above the ice (mountain ranges) and some parts are not covered by ice because there is none. That's where many penguins nest for instance, because most species can't breed on ice.

:p

You are wrong too. Parts of the land stick out above the ice (mountain ranges) and some parts are not covered by ice because there is none. That's where many penguins nest for instance, because most species can't breed on ice.

:p

Hrm, well of course it's not entirely covered in ice lol

Well... ok... its just that the recent view was that i may hence i [MAY] have had a point... if not... its cool... ive already apologized.

No need to apologize imo, I'm just trying to make you see the mistake you made :)

http://xs220.xs.to/xs220/07402/Scold.jpg

What a lovely bunch of gals
(They're not all men are they? If so, ignore last remark.)

What a lovely bunch of gals
(They're not all men are they? If so, ignore last remark.)You can breath freely, Chris Cremin — our gentlemen of science aren't suppose to act like that.

---------------------------------------------------

Also, Antarctica is where Mulder rescues Scully from a dormant alien ship by giving her the serum that the Well-Manicured Man gave him earlier, along with the coordinates to find her there, somewhere.

Oh boy.

I draw this myself, Reiku. This is over simplified, but hope this could help.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k112/sapta_lena/antarctica.jpg

If Antarctica were below sea level, it wouldn't be considered land, would it?

AHEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_on_land_with_elevations_below_sea_l evel) ;)

I draw this myself, Reiku. This is over simplified, but hope this could help.


it's probably more like this:
http://*******************/sciforums/antartica.gif

brown -continent, with mountain ranges sticking from ice shelve (light/ice blue) and some mountain ranges staying underneath the ice.

Some lower areas of the continent also remain uncovered due to local conditions (wind, aridity, lack of snowfall).

Most of the antarctic is apparently near sea level.

Between the ice and the land there are lakes (green)

Why... is that picture posted (you know which one I mean). It's disturbing.

Why... is that picture posted (you know which one I mean). It's disturbing.


sorry the image that I put was too large, I replace already with smaller one.
Btw, Spurious already made better illustration ;)

*in hurry, gtg*

except yours is prettier.

That wasn't the one I meant :P

That wasn't the one I meant :PYeah yeah, I know. I deleted it. It served its purpose. It shouldn't have been quoted. It was meant to be disturbing, jack ass.

Yeah yeah, I know. I deleted it. It served its purpose. It shouldn't have been quoted. It was meant to be disturbing, jack ass.

You deleted the gals?
I'm sure that one of them was Albert Einstein.
Put them back.

i have no intelligence.

i totally dig your posts
stick around nig