A few miscellaneous thoughts about the imminent demise of Big Bang Theory:

[Rift Zone]

OK, RZ,

I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:

...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me.   Homie don't play that.   

What I don't understand is this:

...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.     
...

What is this, "fluff?" 

Have you used this one before?

probably!

[Davin]

Sorry about your friend.    for my defense, it was kinda game on between us, and we both knew it.   not my first choice, but it works out that way sometimes.    i was just defending myself.    tried to warn him about playing with psychological warfare...   at any rate, i was not the agressor here, my wittle feewings have been hurt through the constant barage of assaults on me and my notions, but I have a plush frog so i'm good.

Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.

By the way, don't worry about hurting my feelings, you lack the ability to.

[Davin]

Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.

ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.

As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).

What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.

[Bad Penny II]

OK, RZ,

I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:

...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me.   Homie don't play that.   

What I don't understand is this:

...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.     
...

What is this, "fluff?" 

Have you used this one before?

probably!

Shit, I didn't mean to draw your attention, I don't want to end up in the sack.
Those eight minute folk are anachronisms, six minutes is just crazy talk.

[Rift Zone]

Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.

Davin!   My favorite     adversary.     How you doing?      Well that's what we're all wanting to know about it, isn't it?    So go on, your public awaits you, discount Nova already!   It is a horrendous splattering of disassociated facts with holes lightyears big it in everyone, and Davin here is gonna tell you all about it.   It is weak, but he is strong, and he apparently already broke it...  -Tell us how you did it Davin, show us that stellar scientific shine of yours. 

[Rift Zone]

you were inches away from obsession with me yesterday.  don't try to play.  you love me and you know it.

[Davin]

Oh hi there, Rift Zone, I'm glad that you're thinking about me. You should think though, about why it is that instead of defending your argument with facts, data, and logic, you instead resort to avoidance and personal attacks. The reason you do that, is because your argument is weak and broken.

Davin!   My favorite     adversary.     How you doing?      Well that's what we're all wanting to know about it, isn't it?    So go on, your public awaits you, discount Nova already!   It is a horrendous splattering of disassociated facts with holes lightyears big it in everyone, and Davin here is gonna tell you all about it.   It is weak, but he is strong, and he apparently already broke it...  -Tell us how you did it Davin, show us that stellar scientific shine of yours. 

I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.

you were inches away from obsession with me yesterday.  don't try to play.  you love me and you know it.

So I'm so obsessed with you that I took my normal nightly break from forums as if it doesn't matter that much to me? Doesn't make sense.

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947

He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].

While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.

Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.

[Rift Zone]

I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.

Is that right?    And what is the nature of its flaw?    or are you just making shit up to suit your vile approach to intellecutal dishonesty?

[Rift Zone]

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947

He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].

While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.

Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.

the different colors represent different ions.     (ions=plasma)   Did you know the scientific value of that arguments amounts to, "but we got it right here! -see!".     Yea, you got it there.   But you need it over in another place too, is what my argument says.   this is the importance of forming cohesive thoughts; if you knew what you were talking about, you'd see you'd have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[xSilverPhinx]

Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.

ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.

As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).

What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.

You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here and here and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however. 

[Rift Zone]

I just want to give a shout out to the community at large: I don't expect everyone to like me, but I may be exactly the type of guy you want on your side...   shrewd as fuck and not afraid to challenge anything they're opposed to sounds like a decent ally to me...   Incidentally, our scientific views may differ, but i'd like to point out otherwise we're pretty much on the same side here.

[Davin]

Hyperbole tends to elicit mockery. However, mockery really isn't a civil response to hyperbole. If neither can contain their impulses (Rift Zone's hyperbole--"terrorizing," really? / Davin's mockery) and instead choose to ratchet this up, the staff will have no choice but to step in.

ETA: Your sniping back hasn't been particularly civil, either.

As Recusant posted in response to Rift Zone above (worth re-posting as a reminder), both Rift Zone and Davin have contributed unnecessarily uncivil responses to this thread. If this continues then the staff will be required to take a more active approach (hopefully not before Davin has had the chance to read this and the quoted post).

What responses of mine were uncivil? I've only ever addressed what was said.

You did, but at least a couple of your responses have been to mock your adversary, such as here and here and are not conducive to a civil discussion. It does not excuse Rift Zone's replies to you, however.

I don't see how that is uncivil, Rift Zone is literally denying science, so calling a person who is denying science a science denier is merely descriptive.

Feeling sorry for a person and asking them if they think they are a victim of violence in response to an image post referencing violence is uncivil? That doesn't make sense.

I do mock what is said, but I do not mock the person.

[Davin]

I didn't break your argument, it already was broken.

Is that right?    And what is the nature of its flaw?    or are you just making shit up to suit your vile approach to intellecutal dishonesty?

I see that you missed it, so here it is again:

"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
-Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947

He probably got that impression because structures like NGC 7603, NGC 4319, and many others make it very clear gravitation is a contributing factor to redshift. NASA decided to cover up that fact by doctoring images of NGC 4319 to deny that truth rather than adjust theory to accommodate observation [true story... -ridiculously shady!!!].

While it's difficult to translate these word jumbles into English, this is not a true story. Modern science already accounts for gravitational effects on red shift. NASA "doctors" all their images, that's where the colors come from. They don't get images through the telescopes, they get data. To turn them into images they have to create the images from the data and they throw in colors to make them look more interesting. To call this "doctoring" a cover up is disingenuous at best. And the data is still there if you don't trust the images.

Even when accounting for gravitational effects on red shift, galaxies are still shown to be moving away from each other.

[Rift Zone]

I see that you missed it, so here it is again:

You mean the point you raised that was dismissed back in post #68.    You appear to have missed it.    Or you're arguing things that have been knowing discounted already.   I don't know why you even bother.   You have done nothing to demonstrate scientific aptitude.   every point you raise oozes of juvenile grasp and application of scientific knowledge and approach.   

[Magdalena]

OK, RZ,

I live in LA so I know exactly what this means:

...oh, no question I didn't play nice with anyone who attacked me.   Homie don't play that.   

What I don't understand is this:

...The fluff around here is ridiculous enough as it is.     
...

What is this, "fluff?" 

Bitching, moaning, bickering...   like, most of it.   Anything that not a legit attempt to have a legit conversation is fluff.

Well, bitching, moaning, bickering is part of some legit conversations. Nothing wrong with that. I have those with my man sometimes.

We could just do this to you all day:

...But where's the fun in that? 

We're not that bad. Just get to know us, and we'll get to know you...particularly our "writing styles."