Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245723 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Lamey <teandson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 14:51 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 22:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 16:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 23:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-05 21:15 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:29 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2019-01-06 10:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:35 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:52 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 12:00 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 23:22 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 02:09 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 05:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 06:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 17:57 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 11:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:30 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:27 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 13:39 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 13:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:43 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-06 18:28 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:03 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:13 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:20 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:41 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:41 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:58 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2019-01-07 15:22 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 22:12 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-07 19:10 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:44 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 08:15 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:29 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:32 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:26 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 01:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:52 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:11 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-07 04:47 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:03 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:49 -0500
Kensi's religion isn't that large. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-05 22:54 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqv7b.bcf.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246078 |
On 2019-01-06 6:04 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> stop having babies works too >>>> >>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>> >>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>> >> >> There would still be six left. > > Not for very long. > so only do it for 50 years
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fonrFu1t8U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246078 |
On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> stop having babies works too >>>> >>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>> >>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>> >> >> There would still be six left. > > Not for very long. > No. Always six. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bgqagf-89m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246085 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>> >>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>> >>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>> >>> >>> There would still be six left. >> >> Not for very long. >> > > No. Always six. More childish nonsense. After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well past childbearing age. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ft3lFft2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246120 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>> >>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>> >>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There would still be six left. >>> >>> Not for very long. >>> >> >> No. Always six. > > More childish nonsense. > > After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well > past childbearing age. > Then how do we maintain a population of six?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r02bgf-2vm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246123 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There would still be six left. >>>> >>>> Not for very long. >>>> >>> >>> No. Always six. >> >> More childish nonsense. >> >> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >> past childbearing age. >> > > Then how do we maintain a population of six? Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if there is no one around of childbearing age? Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9g8llF2oltU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246148 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>> >>>>> Not for very long. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. Always six. >>> >>> More childish nonsense. >>> >>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>> past childbearing age. >>> >> >> Then how do we maintain a population of six? > > Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if > there is no one around of childbearing age? With the six people. > > Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? > Interesting how you still refer to Mommies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tejcgf-irr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246163 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. Always six. >>>> >>>> More childish nonsense. >>>> >>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>> past childbearing age. >>>> >>> >>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >> >> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >> there is no one around of childbearing age? > > With the six people. What six people would that be? >> >> Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? >> > > Interesting how you still refer to Mommies. I have to dumb everything down for you... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9hor5Fd7vvU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246247 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>> >>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>> >>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >> >> With the six people. > > What six people would that be? The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? Zombies? > >>> >>> Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? >>> >> >> Interesting how you still refer to Mommies. > > I have to dumb everything down for you... > Your actions speak of you, not me. Yet another lesson for you. Juniper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m3qcgf-ufs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246279 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>> >>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>> >>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>> >>> With the six people. >> >> What six people would that be? > > The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? > Zombies? And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? <snip babbling twaddle> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bst3pc.6fd.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246292 |
On 2019-01-07 1:40 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>> >>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>> >>>> With the six people. >>> >>> What six people would that be? >> >> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >> Zombies? > > And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it > will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? > > <snip babbling twaddle> > i'm not gone so you lied
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369db2dd68c23bff8ae@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #246294 |
In article <bst3pc.6fd.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-07 1:40 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>> >>>>> With the six people. >>>> >>>> What six people would that be? >>> >>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>> Zombies? >> >> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >> >> <snip babbling twaddle> >> >i'm not gone so you lied something tells me there is a jimp in this story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9ht1rFe3rkU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246292 |
On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for very long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Always six.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More childish nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well
>>>>>>> past childbearing age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if
>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age?
>>>>
>>>> With the six people.
>>>
>>> What six people would that be?
>>
>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people?
>> Zombies?
>
> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it
> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone?
>
> <snip babbling twaddle>
>
You did not answer my questions:
jimp:
-----
What six people would that be?
-----
Snit:
-----
The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of?
Dead people? Zombies?
-----
That was not rhetorical. Who were you thinking of?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gj0dgf-o2t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #246295 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>> >>>>> With the six people. >>>> >>>> What six people would that be? >>> >>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>> Zombies? >> >> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >> >> <snip babbling twaddle> >> > > You did not answer my questions: Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bstams.pua.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246327 |
On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>> >>>>>> With the six people. >>>>> >>>>> What six people would that be? >>>> >>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>>> Zombies? >>> >>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>> >>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>> >> >> You did not answer my questions: > > Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. > yet you replied
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i4btFfm05U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246329 |
On 1/7/19 3:51 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would >>>>>>>>>> be 100, well >>>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than >>>>>>>> zero if >>>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With the six people. >>>>>> >>>>>> What six people would that be? >>>>> >>>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead >>>>> people? >>>>> Zombies? >>>> >>>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you >>>> think it >>>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>>> >>>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>>> >>> >>> You did not answer my questions: >> >> Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. >> > yet you replied His reply is he cannot answer the questions. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bstbnn.1qb.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246339 |
On 2019-01-07 4:06 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 1/7/19 3:51 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would >>>>>>>>>>> be 100, well >>>>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than >>>>>>>>> zero if >>>>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the six people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What six people would that be? >>>>>> >>>>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead >>>>>> people? >>>>>> Zombies? >>>>> >>>>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you >>>>> think it >>>>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>>>> >>>>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You did not answer my questions: >>> >>> Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. >>> >> yet you replied > > His reply is he cannot answer the questions. > you've really out smarted yourself this time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i4l1Ffm05U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246327 |
On 1/7/19 3:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: ... >> You did not answer my questions: >> >> jimp: >> ----- >> What six people would that be? >> ----- >> >> Snit: >> ----- >> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? >> Dead people? Zombies? >> ----- >> >> That was not rhetorical. Who were you thinking of? > > Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. Amazing how you cannot admit you do not know. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqkef.2e9.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245974 |
On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> >> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >> you take it to an extreme). > > What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? > the world will get over run with banana eating jimpanzees
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c33e54238a5cb896@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #245985 |
In article <bsqkef.2e9.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>> you take it to an extreme). >> >> What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? >> >the world will get over run with banana eating jimpanzees LO to the FKing L
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q12vtt$1kj0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #245974 |
On 1/6/2019 4:36 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> >> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >> you take it to an extreme). > > What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? > Hey that's a simple answer, Jimp. History of the 20th century shows that just give leftists real power and pretty soon they are solving the overpopulation problem 100 million people at a time. Simple!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web