tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post3635992200527253809..comments2024-03-21T17:50:42.377-07:00Comments on Hop's Blog: Neil Tyson -- Incompetent AssHop Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-60058983542085211902016-04-23T17:31:05.824-07:002016-04-23T17:31:05.824-07:00Kudos to you Turtle for trying to play the role of...Kudos to you Turtle for trying to play the role of peacemaker.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-63370800757214661512016-04-22T18:42:26.950-07:002016-04-22T18:42:26.950-07:00I get Anonymity's point that this was a small ...I get Anonymity's point that this was a small part of a talk.<br />I get Hollister's point that this was an important part of that section of the talk.<br /><br />The section of Tyson's post that was the apology was appropriate. The primary purpose of the post was not to apologize though. Which is why he followed up with the explanation of how it didn't change the overall talk. The part where he explains that he'll continue to mention the president's quote is the important point of contention but it is entirely dependent on how he uses the quote. If he continues to use it in some misleading way then his apology was insincere. Maybe he won't actually quote Bush but still use the scripture to as a bridge to talking about stars and Arabic names. That would probably be fine. But until he gives a talk that uses these talking points this is all conjecture and about as pointless to argue about as this very post I'm making trying to resolve an internet argument between two people I don't even know.<br /><br />I guess my point is it's good to be passionate about things but let's accept Tyson's post for what it was and get those bees out of our bonnets. I think those bees have more important things to be buzzing about.Turtlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-12875841129970714052016-02-27T08:38:52.287-08:002016-02-27T08:38:52.287-08:00Nothing Wrong, Yep. When Tyson says he'll leav...Nothing Wrong, Yep. When Tyson says he'll leave in the part about terrorists' planes and continue to quote Bush, I just can't accept he's referring to the snippets on Terminal Cancer or UFOs. Silly me.<br /><br />Out of all the human life on this planet, Tyson isn't the only playground bully who's gathered an obnoxious cult following. I also dispute the doctrines of Paul Spudis, Robert Zubrin and <a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/stranded-resources/" rel="nofollow">Tom Murphy</a>, for example.<br /><br />I actually have admiration for most the folks I criticize. But it angers me when fans deify the object of their worship. I will give Tom Murphy as an example. I sympathize with his call to reduce consumption and preserve our planet and resources. But I disagree asteroid mining is a fool's errand. I will go to various forums and counter Murphy's arguments with math. I'll point out Murphy doesn't patch conics correctly. Or that there are plenty of asteroids closer than 5 km/s to the earth-moon system. Oddly enough, Murphy's "Do The Math" crowd invariably counter with personal attacks devoid of math.<br /><br />Talking about toxic subcultures, Tyson's following is among the worst. Plenty of folks who memorize a few Klingon phrases and proclaim themselves nerds. Never mind that they flunked out of high school math and physics. Tyson says Clarke was the first to calculate altitude of geosynchronous orbits? Why, then -- it must be true. Tyson has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, I'm informed. He is the smartest man on the planet! We don't need evidence or cites because <b>Science</b>! Feynman must be spinning in his grave. Of all the personality cults, perhaps Tyson's is the most deserving of ridicule. Although Trump's following gives them competition.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-13355411292671101982016-02-26T15:48:09.504-08:002016-02-26T15:48:09.504-08:00You don't appear to want to grasp what I'm...You don't appear to want to grasp what I'm saying. I'm sorry that, out of all the human life on this planet, you've chosen Neil deGrasse Tyson as your sworn enemy. I hope it works out for you and your quest for truth.Nothing Wrong with Anonymitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-24818802077688823252016-02-26T14:46:33.821-08:002016-02-26T14:46:33.821-08:00In reply to yet another "anonymous" who ...In reply to yet another "anonymous" who doesn't identify him/herself --<br /><br />This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8" rel="nofollow">long rambling presentation</a> includes many different talks. Each particular talk is preceded with the talk's title projected on a screen.<br /><br />Of course Bush's actual 9-11 speech does not change Tyson's talk on UFO Sightings. Nor do terrorists flying planes alter Tyson's talk on Terminal Cancer. The Golden Age of Islam doesn't have much to do Swami Levitation or Birthrates & Full Moon. Bush, Islam and 9-11 has nothing to do with most of that presentation. It is excruciatingly obvious the topic being discussed is the segment titled "George W. Bush".<br /><br />Your defense is a dishonest red herring. Ok?<br /><br />By the way, some of the talks in that presentation are addressed in my blog post <a href="http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html" rel="nofollow">Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson</a> Tyson's Surviving Terminal Cancer talk is pretty ridiculous. The Bush shtick has been included in Tyson's naming rights talk which segues into the Fall of Islam. Regarding the Fall of Islam, Tyson's characterization of Al Ghazali is bogus.<br /><br />Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-32410181727817852292016-02-26T12:54:01.905-08:002016-02-26T12:54:01.905-08:00Hollister David,
The video you linked is just a s...Hollister David,<br /><br />The video you linked is just a segment of a much longer presentation. The full version of that exact presentation can be found at this hyperlink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8<br /><br />The video segment you cite (which occurs at 52:38 in the full presentation linked above) is just a mere 4 minutes of an 88 minute presentation.<br /><br />So, when Neil wrote in his Facebook post, "...very little changes in that particular talk," he meant that he's only going to be changing the 5% of his full presentation that you and others demonstrated was inaccurate.<br /><br />Ok?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-23703837677817560502016-02-05T10:32:12.220-08:002016-02-05T10:32:12.220-08:00Anonymous, can you give yourself a handle? If seve...Anonymous, can you give yourself a handle? If several posters use the label "anonymous", it's not clear who I'm responding to.<br /><br />The presentations do share a few power point slides, yes. Does that make them the same presentation? Ummm… No. That's a horribly idiotic statement. Once again <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBllD0-whEc" rel="nofollow">here</a> is the video in question. Title of the video is "George Bush and Star Names". The focus of the video, as the title implies, is George Bush. Not one mention is made of Intelligent Design. If you were interested in the truth you would bother to actually watch the video I linked to.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-29903279033011160192016-02-04T19:57:25.018-08:002016-02-04T19:57:25.018-08:00Of course it's a separate video, but it's ...Of course it's a separate video, but it's the same presentation. He uses the same PowerPoint slides. He's not reading a script, but it's the same subject (Intelligent Design). You can find multiple versions of the talk on the internet if you bother to actually look, but I don't think you're interested in the truth. You just don't like Tyson and are doing the exact thing you accuse him of doing. Surely someone as magnanimous as yourself would be aware of this irony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-447252465343095842016-02-03T10:58:59.001-08:002016-02-03T10:58:59.001-08:00Anonymous, in the video you cite 9/11, Bush, and A...Anonymous, in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo" rel="nofollow">video you cite</a> 9/11, Bush, and Arabic star names is small portion of his presentation. However in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBllD0-whEc" rel="nofollow">video I cite</a>, Bush is the central focus. <br /><br />So no, one isn't a short segment of the other. They are two separate videos.<br /><br />And the video I cite is the one Sean Davis bought to Tyson's attention. The main point of that video is the xenophobia and idiocy of George Bush.<br /><br />I am pretty sure you try to fertilize your yard with shoe polish.Hop Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12923433894475072056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-39530175697582706372016-02-02T21:34:46.027-08:002016-02-02T21:34:46.027-08:00You are wrong about the so-called "Bush talk&...You are wrong about the so-called "Bush talk". That was a short segment of a much longer talk about Intelligent Design. You'll see the segment in your video link is around the 24 or 25 minute mark of the following link.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo<br /><br />I'm pretty sure this is what Tyson was talking about when he said "Of course very little changes in that particular talk." Given the haughty tone of your blog, I expected zero errors. I am disappointed. I'm sure if I combed through the rest of your blog, I wouldn't find any other errors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-20869074003564460792015-09-03T13:26:02.973-07:002015-09-03T13:26:02.973-07:00He irritates me, too.
The remake of Cosmos was pa...He irritates me, too.<br /><br />The remake of <i>Cosmos</i> was particularly annoying, but I did have fun debating people who believed it hook-line-and-sinker.<br /><br />In the first episode he expounded on how we might one day unlock the incredible secrets of photosynthesis to power our civilization. But that would mean replacing our 20 to 40 percent efficient solar cells with new ones that are about 3 percent efficient.<br /><br />He goes on about the burning of the library of Alexandria by a mob, when it was actually burned on accident by Caesar's troops. It was also not the center of learning, but one of many libraries. Centuries later there was an a attack by a religious mob in Alexandria, but nobody mentioned destroying any scrolls, only some pagan shrines that weren't even at the library.<br /><br />He goes on about the murder of Hypatia, but his story was based on an irate Protestant version made up long ago to slander Catholics as murderers bathed in ignorance and hatred. Hypatia was killed because she put herself in the middle of a violent religious dispute between Roman (secular) authority and church authority. After her death her school kept teaching the same things to the same students.<br /><br />People became more ignorant and misguided just by watching it.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12825860473805156081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3596550435682943926.post-31297589959282037762015-08-25T09:25:17.648-07:002015-08-25T09:25:17.648-07:00 Hey, man. That image is really, like, far out man... Hey, man. That image is really, like, far out man ...<br /><br /><br /> Bob C.Robert Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.com