Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > General Chat > Talk of the Town

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2004, 04:52 PM   #11
Drako_Dragon
Senior Member
 
Drako_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Internet Home for Insane Ducks
Posts: 1,172
Default Re: Fahrenheit

> Discuss.
>
Fahrenheit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Fahrenheit is a temperature scale named after the physicist Gabriel Fahrenheit, who proposed it in 1724.

In this scale, the freezing point of water is 32 degrees Fahrenheit (written 32°F), and the boiling point is 212 degrees, placing the boiling and melting points of water 180 degrees apart. Thus the unit of this scale, a degree Fahrenheit, is 5/9ths of a kelvin (or of a degree Celsius), and -40 degrees Fahrenheit is equal to -40 degrees Celsius.

History
Fahrenheit established the zero of his scale (0°F) as the temperature at which an equal mixture of ice and salt melts (some say he took that fixed mixture of ice and salt that produced the lowest temperature); and ninety-six degrees as the temperature of blood (he initially used horse's blood to calibrate his scale). Initially, his scale had only contained 12 equal subdivisions, but then later he subdivided each division into 8 equal degrees ending up with 96. He then observed that plain water would freeze at 32 degrees and boil at 212 degrees.

His measurements were not entirely accurate, though; by his original scale, the actual freezing and boiling points would have been noticeably different from 32°F and 212°F. Some time after his death, it was decided to recalibrate the scale with 32°F and 212°F being the actual freezing and boiling points of plain water. This resulted in the healthy human body temperature being 98.6°F degrees rather than 96°F.

The Fahrenheit scale was widely used in Europe and in many English-speaking countries until the Celsius (formerly centigrade) scale was adopted in the late 1960s and 1970s. In the United States and Jamaica, Fahrenheit continues to be used by the general population for everyday, non-scientific temperature measurement. Conversion between the two scales is given by the formula °C = (5/9)(°F-32), where °C and °F are the Celsius and Fahrenheit temperatures, respectively.


Sounds like there isn't much to discuss.



<P ID="signature"><hr> Disk Error: Please Insert Disk 7 of 5.

'Veni, Vidi, Velcro' - I came, I saw, I stuck around.</P>
__________________

Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Drako_Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2004, 01:36 PM   #12
IceWolf20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,252
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> Discuss.

I'd say this pretty much sums up my opinion about the whole situation.

<P ID="signature"><div align="center">
...the way to be!</div></P>
IceWolf20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 03:20 AM   #13
Lobster Cowboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,836
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

finally got around to watching my downloaded copy (thank you, mr. moore). here are my thoughts...

first, i felt that moore was unfair to attack the president when he didn't leave the school immediately upon the striking of the world trade center. the last thing you want to do it act rashly, and even more so, frighten the children. besides, there was no immediate response bush could've taken at that moment. during a situation of chaos, it's better to have secret service assess the possible danger to the president before moving him from a location. at the time of 9/11, who knew the full extent of the threat?

two, the links between bush and the saudis is tenuous at best. many businessmen deal with the saudis. the film itself stated that saudi arabia had a 7% stake in the US economy. this stake includes many bluechip companies. it stands to reason that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of americans had something to do with saudi business. a powerful and rich family like the bushes would be stupid not to deal with the bin ladens. also, and this is important, ONLY OSAMA WAS A TERRORIST. the other bin ladens were legit, and were a well respected family.

third, the film was a failure as a documentary, but a success as an op-ed piece. a documentary should have some form of objectivity, but this film did not. a good documentary should present two sides of the argument, and let the viewer decide what they believe in. moore's film was little more than propaganda in that respect. there was absolutely nothing presented on behalf of the president.

that said, moore presented his points well, and essentially mirrored many of my views on the war. it was a foolishly devised conflict, rashly fought and thought out. action was necessary in iraq, but not because of WMD. action was needed to stop the human rights violations of sadaam. had the war been fought on this principle, i might've supported it. unfortunately, it was fought for a completely different, and not entirely known reason.

had this been fought differently, a true arab democratic country might have been established in iraq. think of the possibilities if the US had a middle east ally that wasn't israel? it would give us more credibility with other islamic nations, unlike the pure hatred and distrust we share today.

the damage is done, tho', and john kerry sure as hell won't fix things either. he's like a democratic bush. another affluent white fucker that YOU KNOW took advantage of people to attain a higher position of wealth/power. if you think that kerry got to where he is today through pure elbow grease and know how, and did nothing remotely objectionable or questionable and never relied on his vast connections, think again. he's NO BETTER than bush in that respect.

i defintely recommend the movie, if only to make you think more about, and talk more about what's going on in the world.

<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.lobsterstudios.com/images/lobsterranx.jpg>
</img></P>
Lobster Cowboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 04:41 AM   #14
Ugly Joe
Senior Member
 
Ugly Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,461
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> a good
> documentary should present two sides of the argument, and
> let the viewer decide what they believe in. moore's film
> was little more than propaganda in that respect. there was
> absolutely nothing presented on behalf of the president.

Welcome to Moore's films...

<P ID="signature"></P>
__________________
Ugly Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 07:07 AM   #15
Canar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 386
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> Welcome to Moore's films...

Bowling for Columbine was relatively unbiased towards either side.

<P ID="signature"><center><hr width=468><a href='http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/psylight'>
</a>Now with comments!</center></P>
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 08:47 AM   #16
mrfreeze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,158
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> > Welcome to Moore's films...
>
> Bowling for Columbine was relatively unbiased towards either
> side.
>
Just had a bunch of stuff that was wrong or completely made up. There was a link to all the stuff that was off in the film, but I have lost it since then. I'm sure someone here has it.

<P ID="signature"><image src=http://imageshack.us/files/donsig2.gif></P>
mrfreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2004, 04:46 PM   #17
Canar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 386
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> Just had a bunch of stuff that was wrong or completely made
> up. There was a link to all the stuff that was off in the
> film, but I have lost it since then. I'm sure someone here
> has it.

On the other side, there's http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/this</a>, straight from the horse's ass himself.
<img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center><hr width=468><a href='http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/psylight'>
</a>Now with comments!</center></P>
Canar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2004, 01:08 AM   #18
WhyteKnight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 775
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

Here's a decent analysis of the film at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

I think I can safely say that Moore's films aren't exactly documentaries. What he does, along with people like him, is basically to present material that enforces or upholds their system of thought or belief at any cost. Not so much to make you think about it or to make people who disagree with it change their way of thinking, but to rally the masses of people who already agree with them and drum them up to go pound foreheads against the rallied masses of people who think the opposite way.

<P ID="signature"><center><a href=http://faith.rydia.net/></a></center></P>
WhyteKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 03:11 AM   #19
(wraith_)
Senior Member
 
(wraith_)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,163
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> first, i felt that moore was unfair to attack the president
> when he didn't leave the school immediately upon the
> striking of the world trade center. the last thing you want
> to do it act rashly, and even more so, frighten the
] children. besides, there was no immediate response bush
> could've taken at that moment. during a situation of chaos,
> it's better to have secret service assess the possible
> danger to the president before moving him from a location.
> at the time of 9/11, who knew the full extent of the threat?

The president might've, if he hadn't spent 42% of the preceding months on vacation.

> two, the links between bush and the saudis is tenuous at
> best. many businessmen deal with the saudis. the film
> itself stated that saudi arabia had a 7% stake in the US
> economy. this stake includes many bluechip companies. it
] stands to reason that thousands, if not hundreds of
> thousands of americans had something to do with saudi
> business. a powerful and rich family like the bushes would
> be stupid not to deal with the bin ladens. also, and this
> is important, ONLY OSAMA WAS A TERRORIST. the other bin
] ladens were legit, and were a well respected family.

I don't think that Moore was trying to prove that the Bin Ladens were terrorists and that Bush was as well by association. The idea was that when Bush wakes up in the morning, does he think first about the American people and the 400,000 a year we give him, or does he think about the Saudis and the money they've funneled to him over the years?

> third, the film was a failure as a documentary, but a
> success as an op-ed piece. a documentary should have some
> form of objectivity, but this film did not. a good
> documentary should present two sides of the argument, and
] let the viewer decide what they believe in. moore's film
> was little more than propaganda in that respect. there was
> absolutely nothing presented on behalf of the president.

If you want something presented on behalf of the president, turn on any major news station.

> that said, moore presented his points well, and essentially
> mirrored many of my views on the war. it was a foolishly
> devised conflict, rashly fought and thought out. action was
> necessary in iraq, but not because of WMD. action was
] needed to stop the human rights violations of sadaam. had
> the war been fought on this principle, i might've supported
> it. unfortunately, it was fought for a completely
> different, and not entirely known reason.

How come we don't go policing all the other human rights violators out there? This war is about oil control, and Haliburrton making LOTS of money through defense contracts. Meanwhile, the brave people that volunteer to defend our country are sent to to Iraq to die, or to kill others. And while I'm sure the upperclass are profiting a great deal from this, what of the lowerclass? Can they eat war to alleviate their hunger? Can they use war to pay their rent or their mortgage?

> had this been fought differently, a true arab democratic
> country might have been established in iraq. think of the
> possibilities if the US had a middle east ally that wasn't
] israel? it would give us more credibility with other
> islamic nations, unlike the pure hatred and distrust we
> share today.

Ultimately, the people of Iraq are going to set up the governemt of their own choosing. Then again, that whole "the people choose the leader they want" thing worked out pretty good for us four years ago, right?

> the damage is done, tho', and john kerry sure as hell won't
> fix things either. he's like a democratic bush. another
> affluent white fucker that YOU KNOW took advantage of people
> to attain a higher position of wealth/power. if you think
] that kerry got to where he is today through pure elbow
> grease and know how, and did nothing remotely objectionable
> or questionable and never relied on his vast connections,
> think again. he's NO BETTER than bush in that respect.

Sure, but do you think Kerry is going to send more and more troops over there while continuing to slash their benefits?

> i defintely recommend the movie, if only to make you think
> more about, and talk more about what's going on in the
> world.

I recommend it because it shows the stuff that doesn't saturate CNN and FoxNews.

<P ID="signature"><hr width=350 align=left>
Remember, the Internet is a place where absolutely nothing happens.</P>
__________________
http://www.zophar.net/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=6&dateline=1218505060
(wraith_) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2004, 03:16 AM   #20
king killa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,135
Default Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

> I recommend it because it shows the stuff that doesn't
> saturate CNN and FoxNews.
>

That's because they try not to lie on those channels.

<P ID="signature"></P>
king killa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 PM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.