Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #449199 > unrolled thread

Possibly good?

Started by-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
First post2018-04-26 11:49 -0700
Last post2018-04-27 18:29 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 145 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Possibly good? -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-04-26 11:49 -0700
    Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:28 -0700
    Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-26 22:24 +0000
      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-26 15:38 -0700
        Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 21:47 -0700
      Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 15:51 -0700
        Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 00:39 -0700
    Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-26 23:32 +0000
      Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 03:45 -0700
    Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-27 11:03 -0500
      Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-27 22:03 +0000
        Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-27 17:28 -0700
          Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 11:01 -0400
            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 08:52 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 16:01 +0000
                Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 12:43 -0400
                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 09:56 -0700
                Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 09:48 -0700
                  Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 19:08 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:00 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 16:23 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:36 -0700
                        Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:59 +0000
                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:11 -0700
                            Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:33 +0000
                              Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 15:35 -0700
                                Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:56 +0000
                                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:06 -0700
                                    Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 23:21 +0000
                                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:42 -0700
                                        Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 14:27 +0000
                                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700
                                          Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:27 -0400
                                            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:54 -0700
                              Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 19:41 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:56 +0000
                        Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:07 -0700
                          Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:06 +0000
                            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 15:30 -0700
                              Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 22:43 +0000
                                Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:07 -0700
                                  Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 23:17 +0000
                                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 16:42 -0700
                                      Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 00:58 +0000
                                        Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 18:22 -0700
                                          Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 01:37 +0000
                                            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 18:44 -0700
                                              Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 01:53 +0000
                                                Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:06 -0700
                                                  Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:16 +0000
                                                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:30 -0700
                                                      Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:44 +0000
                                                        Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 19:46 -0700
                                                          Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 02:54 +0000
                                                            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 20:00 -0700
                                                              Re: Possibly good? Brick <brick@mortar.invalid> - 2018-04-29 03:03 +0000
                                                                Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-29 04:44 -0700
                                                                  Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 05:13 -0700
                                                                  Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-29 19:21 -0400
                                                                    Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 16:54 -0700
                        Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:11 -0400
                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:18 -0700
                Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 09:42 -0400
                  Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 14:21 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 07:34 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 10:43 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:28 +0000
                        Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 13:13 -0400
                          Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:37 +0000
                            Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:44 -0700
                        Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:15 -0500
                          Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:36 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 15:29 +0000
                      Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 15:43 +0000
                        Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 16:05 +0000
                          Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 16:44 +0000
                            Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 17:40 +0000
                              Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 17:58 +0000
                                Re: Possibly good? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-04-29 19:24 +0000
                                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 12:43 -0700
                                    Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:26 +0000
                                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 13:46 -0700
                                  Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-29 20:24 +0000
                                Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:05 -0700
                      Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:23 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 12:27 -0400
            Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 17:24 +0000
              Re: Possibly good? a.m <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 13:44 -0400
                Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:54 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 10:56 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-04-28 21:01 +0200
                Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 12:59 -0700
                  Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 20:51 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 13:57 -0700
                      Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-04-28 21:04 +0000
                        Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:13 -0400
                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:17 -0700
                        Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:37 +0000
                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:41 -0700
                          Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 01:21 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-04-28 17:09 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-28 14:12 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:36 +0000
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:40 -0700
                      Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:26 +0200
                Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 23:13 -0700
                Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:19 -0500
                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 08:04 -0700
                  Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:38 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:42 -0700
                    Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:24 +0200
                    Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:34 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 02:53 -0700
                Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:34 +0000
                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-30 20:39 -0700
                  Re: Possibly good? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-01 09:20 +0200
                    Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 05:37 -0400
                    Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 21:23 +0000
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 14:31 -0700
                      Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-03 19:33 -0400
                  Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:11 -0400
                    Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 15:17 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:47 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-02 07:53 -0400
            Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-04-29 09:40 -0400
              Re: Possibly good? Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 07:03 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700
              Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-30 08:03 -0500
                Re: Possibly good? William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2018-04-30 14:14 +0100
                Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 03:44 +0000
                  Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 04:43 +0000
                    Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 05:28 +0000
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 05:36 +0000
                        Re: Possibly good? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-01 06:09 +0000
                          Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 07:12 -0700
                            Re: Possibly good? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 14:52 +0000
                              Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 14:56 +0000
                                Re: Possibly good? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-01 15:01 +0000
                  Re: Possibly good? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-01 07:01 -0500
                    Re: Possibly good? Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-01 08:31 -0700
                      Re: Possibly good? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-05-01 19:41 -0400
                    Re: Possibly good? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 21:19 +0000
                      Re: Possibly good? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-03 14:27 -0700
        Re: Possibly good? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:29 -0700

Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next page →

#449561

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 20:26 +0000
Message-ID<szc808b9a.a2@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#449559
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/18 12:24 PM, F. Russell wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:58:23 +0000, owl wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> The Labrador Current brings cold waters
>>> south along the coast of Labrador.
>>>
>> 
>> So what?  Labrador is NOT the anomaly.
>> 
>> The anomaly is Great Britain and most of northern Europe
>> where it is MUCH warmer than it should be.  The reason --
>> and the ONLY reason -- is the transport of tropical heat
>> via the Gulf Stream.
>> 
>> The fact that you don't even understand the issue is a
>> further proof of your complete ignorance of global
>> climatic mechanisms.
>> 
>> Here is another question which you will fail:
>> 
>> Why are there predominantly western winds in the
>> northern temperate zone, while in the northern tropics
>> the winds are easterly?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> He hears "global warming" and assumes this means ALL areas will get 
> warmer when the real meaning is closer to the AVERAGE getting warmer. As 
> that happens water and air current change and cold areas will end up in 
> different places.
> 

Hey, mush-head.  Fabtard asked me a specific question, and he
got the correct, specific answer.

> Overall the oceans are warming and getting more acidic. He is blind to this.
> 

Don't you have a scrap book to finish and some brownies
in the oven?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449562

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-29 13:46 -0700
Message-ID<fkmp97Fa2f0U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449561
On 4/29/18 1:26 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/29/18 12:24 PM, F. Russell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:58:23 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Labrador Current brings cold waters
>>>> south along the coast of Labrador.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what?  Labrador is NOT the anomaly.
>>>
>>> The anomaly is Great Britain and most of northern Europe
>>> where it is MUCH warmer than it should be.  The reason --
>>> and the ONLY reason -- is the transport of tropical heat
>>> via the Gulf Stream.
>>>
>>> The fact that you don't even understand the issue is a
>>> further proof of your complete ignorance of global
>>> climatic mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Here is another question which you will fail:
>>>
>>> Why are there predominantly western winds in the
>>> northern temperate zone, while in the northern tropics
>>> the winds are easterly?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> He hears "global warming" and assumes this means ALL areas will get
>> warmer when the real meaning is closer to the AVERAGE getting warmer. As
>> that happens water and air current change and cold areas will end up in
>> different places.
>>
> 
> Hey, mush-head.  Fabtard asked me a specific question, and he
> got the correct, specific answer.
> 
>> Overall the oceans are warming and getting more acidic. He is blind to this.
>>
> 
> Don't you have a scrap book to finish and some brownies
> in the oven?

LOL! No scrap book but I am working on some craft project for an RPG 
game I run, and the brownies are already out of the oven (would love to 
take credit for them but my wife and one of my daughters made them).

:)



-- 
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]

#449560

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 20:24 +0000
Message-ID<9z0fb803.aghuo4@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#449558
F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:58:23 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The Labrador Current brings cold waters
>> south along the coast of Labrador.
>> 
> 
> So what?  Labrador is NOT the anomaly.
> 
> The anomaly is Great Britain and most of northern Europe
> where it is MUCH warmer than it should be.  The reason --
> and the ONLY reason -- is the transport of tropical heat
> via the Gulf Stream.
> 

You asked for why two climates for those two places in the
same latitude.  I told you the answer:  Labrador Current
and Gulf Stream.

> The fact that you don't even understand the issue is a
> further proof of your complete ignorance of global
> climatic mechanisms.
> 

I understand the issue, you idiot.  But apparently
you don't, since you have stated that you think
the Labrador Current has nothing to do with Labrador's
climate.  Moron.

> Here is another question which you will fail:
> 
> Why are there predominantly western winds in the
> northern temperate zone, while in the northern tropics
> the winds are easterly?
> 
 

The Sun and the Earth's rotation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449563

FromSteven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com>
Date2018-04-29 14:05 -0700
Message-ID<9d7d4f78-ce14-4cb6-bde0-d9de46800670@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#449548
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 10:58:25 AM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:44:19 +0000, owl wrote:
> > 
> >> <quote>
> >> The cold waters of the Labrador Current
> >>
> > 
> > The Labrador current is irrelevant.  Only the Gulf Stream
> > is responsible.
> > 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The Labrador Current brings cold waters
> south along the coast of Labrador.
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Corrientes-oceanicas.png
> 
> > But the fact that you mentioned BOTH strongly indicates
> > that you performed a hasty search in an attempt to cover
> > up your serious ignorance.
> > 
> 
> The Gulf Stream is famous.  There was no need to look
> that one up.



I just configured a filter and do not see the flooding. Vennie Bowden (https://www.bloomtreeprescott.com/staff/Vennie.Bowden)'s nonsense has made a complete cesspool of this group via GG, so I don't make an attempt reading Krystal Lynn with my desktop anymore. Only thing he has accomplished with this behavior is that the Vennie Bowden (https://www.bloomtreeprescott.com/staff/Vennie.Bowden) filter has been shown to be the right choice. Vennie Bowden (https://www.bloomtreeprescott.com/staff/Vennie.Bowden) shows at least some of the posts are hand generated because some of them are direct responses in very specific ways that underscore they are a response, so not from a computer auto-generator. Meaning someone is hand writing many of these. 

Right, Vennie Bowden (https://www.bloomtreeprescott.com/staff/Vennie.Bowden) is pushing to sell a programming interface variable, which anyone can get for free, tied to a basic bubble sort. If he wasn't so dumb he would get how clueless he appears. 

Honestly, what lie? 

Undeniably, the sole undertaking that concerns Vennie Bowden (https://www.bloomtreeprescott.com/staff/Vennie.Bowden) is arguing he is "honorable", and if he can not have that he will create socks to desperately slap Krystal Lynn down, effectively ruining every group he goes to. I am a complete fanboi of Wayland, because that's where all the thrilling UI updates are happening. Having to put up with the use of Wayland is not what most want to do. BTW, I've already proved that his use of "herd" to describe Krystal Lynn is denigrating, since he's likening them to pack of wolves. 

--
Best CMS Solution of 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhOfBmWwCVY
http://www.5z8.info/trojan_p4g1zy_how-to-skin-a-gerbil
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449508

FromSteven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com>
Date2018-04-29 09:23 -0700
Message-ID<f8eeaced-2238-47dc-aa17-528ee89941df@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#449497
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 8:30:12 AM UTC-7, F. Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 14:21:48 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Good.  Now we can make enough thermometers to get accurate data
> > worldwide on worldwide temperature changes.
> >
> 
> Every climate change denier that I have encountered has failed
> to answer this basic scientific question.  So let's watch YOU
> also fail:
> 
> Great Britain is located at the same latitude as Labrador,
> yet while Labrador is freezing with frigid cold most of the year
> Great Britain enjoys a relatively warm and temperate climate.
> Why is this so?
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  Another climate change denier shows
> himself to know NOTHING about climate.



Can emoji be concatenated into a string with a logical connection to the "real" world; that is the question posed recently by those astonished at the endless babbling of "advocates" and Cheetos smelling losers. Aragorn's "troubleshooting prowess" side tracked him from a module he insists does not exists that Desk Rabbit found in seconds for this software. This is something you know nothing about. 

You will not go into a cult meeting, chug all the grog, shit on all the goats, heist the wine and yak in the bathroom without being mocked. 

--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You
http://www.macadvocacy.pw/2005/Nov/09/236626.html
https://youtu.be/HHT9SJgYsH4
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449356

Froma.m <.m@nsn.s>
Date2018-04-28 12:27 -0400
Message-ID<2589ed9npqia6sak91nunt1qerf2a1if7m@4ax.com>
In reply to#449353
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 08:52:55 -0700, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/18 8:01 AM, a.m wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:28:42 -0700, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4/27/18 3:03 PM, F. Russell wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:03:28 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In another month, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation becomes
>>>>> enforceable.  It provides strict requirements
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that law so I cannot comment.
>>>>
>>>> But I do know that both European _and_ American politics is
>>>> REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE.  The politicians should see
>>>> these things coming far in advance but they never do.  Consequently
>>>> most laws are unfortunately always "too little and too late."
>>>
>>> Climate change is a great examples of this.
>> 
>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now
>> are now admitting that they were wrong.
>
>Who said we would be under water? The oceans HAVE risen. The predictions 
>have been amazingly accurate.

Lie. Cue liberal sources that confirm the lie...

>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>
>You hand-picked one study. One. In the past you have hand-picked some 
>others. But you are hand-picking and ignoring the overall picture... the 
>overall science. You are seeking confirmation bias and finding it. That 
>is NOT how you should look at science. That is not using the best data 
>we have and understanding the context.
>
>Let's get some context:
>
><https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/26/study-lowers-range-for-future-global-warming-but-does-it-matter>
>OR <https://goo.gl/C75akG>

... as expected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449370

FromRonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Date2018-04-28 17:24 +0000
Message-ID<pc2ao8$du7$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449350
On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
><https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>
> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
> enough to believe them. 

But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising 
water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from 
colder (not warmer) weather. The true measurement of "rising water" is where 
the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.

Most people aren't stupid enough to believe this lying bullshit, which is 
why man-made global warming screechers are screeching louder and louder.

-- 
The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449372

Froma.m <.m@nsn.s>
Date2018-04-28 13:44 -0400
Message-ID<occ9edlia7etj0s1qjg0tm548vokbvupom@4ax.com>
In reply to#449370
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 17:24:25 -0000 (UTC), RonB
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>><https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>
>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>> enough to believe them. 
>
>But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising 
>water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from 
>colder (not warmer) weather. The true measurement of "rising water" is where 
>the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.

That fact is inconvenient to liberal Snits like Michael Glasser. We
should turn to him and find out what today's facts are because God
forbid we believe anything which makes them appear to be
propagandists, hypocrites or liars. 

>Most people aren't stupid enough to believe this lying bullshit, which is 
>why man-made global warming screechers are screeching louder and louder.

If people were all raised by responsible human beings (ie: people with
real jobs who actually take care of their children unlike Michael
Glasser), there wouldn't be so many people around willing to believe
such stupidity. Instead, we've all accepted single-parent families
where there is a lack of a male role model, childen being raised by
homosexual parents who involve their children in their degenerate
sexual acts and the government deciding what should or shouldn't be
done with children to the point that we're breeding a generation of
Snits who believe that everything should be run based on people's
emotions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449378

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 10:54 -0700
Message-ID<fkjqq0Fkmb9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449372
On 4/28/18 10:44 AM, a.m wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 17:24:25 -0000 (UTC), RonB
> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>
>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>> enough to believe them.
>>
>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>> colder (not warmer) weather. The true measurement of "rising water" is where
>> the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
> 
> That fact is inconvenient to liberal Snits like Michael Glasser. We
> should turn to him and find out what today's facts are because God
> forbid we believe anything which makes them appear to be
> propagandists, hypocrites or liars.
> 
>> Most people aren't stupid enough to believe this lying bullshit, which is
>> why man-made global warming screechers are screeching louder and louder.
> 
> If people were all raised by responsible human beings (ie: people with
> real jobs who actually take care of their children unlike Michael
> Glasser), there wouldn't be so many people around willing to believe
> such stupidity. Instead, we've all accepted single-parent families
> where there is a lack of a male role model, childen being raised by
> homosexual parents who involve their children in their degenerate
> sexual acts and the government deciding what should or shouldn't be
> done with children to the point that we're breeding a generation of
> Snits who believe that everything should be run based on people's
> emotions.
> 
Wow: you literally cannot stop yourself form proving me right.

-- 
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]

#449379

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 10:56 -0700
Message-ID<fkjqurFkmb9U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449370
On 4/28/18 10:24 AM, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>
>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>> enough to believe them.
> 
> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
> colder (not warmer) weather.

Can you show support that warmer weather does not lead to more intense 
storms? Keep in mind it is trivial to show otherwise:

<https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/global-warming-rain-snow-tornadoes.html#.WuS1cy-ZPok> 
OR <https://goo.gl/jvFJ6z>

> The true measurement of "rising water" is where
> the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.

I would LOVE to see you back THAT claim! Keep in mind how easy it is to 
show contrary evidence:

<https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html>

> Most people aren't stupid enough to believe this lying bullshit, which is
> why man-made global warming screechers are screeching louder and louder.

Seriously: if you want to learn about the science go to ANY relevant 
scientific site.


-- 
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]

#449383

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2018-04-28 21:01 +0200
Message-ID<pc2gen$nbe$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449370
RonB wrote:

> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>><https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>
>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>> enough to believe them.
> 
> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
> colder (not warmer) weather. 

Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the 
difference, the more intense the storm.
And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures

> The true measurement of "rising water" is
> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.

It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449391

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 12:59 -0700
Message-ID<fkk257FmatdU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449383
On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> RonB wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>
>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>> enough to believe them.
>>
>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>> colder (not warmer) weather.
> 
> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
> difference, the more intense the storm.
> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
> 
>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
> 
> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising

Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about 
science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.


-- 
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]

#449403

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2018-04-28 20:51 +0000
Message-ID<s0bz08b.avji@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#449391
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>
>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>
>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>> 
>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>> 
>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>> 
>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
> 
> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about 
> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
> 
> 

Here's the science regarding "global warming":
https://www.nasa.gov/sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449405

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 13:57 -0700
Message-ID<fkk5h7Fn2opU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449403
On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>
>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>
>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>
>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>
>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>
>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>
>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>
>>
> 
> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>   
> 
The sun certainly plays a factor, but here is NASA's site with the 
broader perspective:

     <https://climate.nasa.gov>

Remember, the more you understand about the science the less likely you 
are to deny it.

-- 
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]

#449408

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2018-04-28 21:04 +0000
Message-ID<azxcv083v.anue@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#449405
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>>
>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>>
>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>>
>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>>   
>> 
> The sun certainly plays a factor

LOL!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449414

FromDoomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s>
Date2018-04-28 17:13 -0400
Message-ID<9uo9edp4v6bu1kp742ie367lsg1p33a9tm@4ax.com>
In reply to#449408
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 21:04:31 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
wrote:

>Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>>>
>>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>>>
>>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>>>   
>>> 
>> The sun certainly plays a factor
>
>LOL!

The same way that being a retard plays a role in Snit's trolling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449415

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 14:17 -0700
Message-ID<fkk6npFncojU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449414
On 4/28/18 2:13 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 21:04:31 +0000 (UTC), owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>>>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>>>>    
>>>>
>>> The sun certainly plays a factor
>>
>> LOL!
> 
> The same way that being a retard plays a role in Snit's trolling.
> 
And again you prove me right...

-- 
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]

#449795

FromRonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Date2018-05-01 03:37 +0000
Message-ID<pc8nd2$5a1$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449408
On 2018-04-28, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>>>
>>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>>>
>>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>>>   
>>> 
>> The sun certainly plays a factor
>
> LOL!

A factor of 100%. This is what passes as "science," but the man-made global 
warming ninnies.

-- 
The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449799

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-30 20:41 -0700
Message-ID<fkq5utF27l2U4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449795
On 4/30/18 8:37 PM, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-28, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
>>>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
>>>>>>>> enough to believe them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
>>>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
>>>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
>>>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
>>>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
>>>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
>>>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
>>>>    
>>>>
>>> The sun certainly plays a factor
>>
>> LOL!
> 
> A factor of 100%. This is what passes as "science," but the man-made global
> warming ninnies.
> 

Please go to a science site and try to learn about the topic you are 
talking about.

-- 
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]

#449824

FromSteven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com>
Date2018-05-01 01:21 -0700
Message-ID<6c9fd481-c816-417c-b382-a730f71560c4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#449795
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:37:08 PM UTC-7, RonB wrote:
> On 2018-04-28, owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/28/18 1:51 PM, owl wrote:
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/28/18 12:01 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>>>> RonB wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2018-04-28, a.m <> wrote:
> >>>>>>> <https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950748/climate-change-scientists-impact-not-as-bad-on-planet>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Face it, your liberal media lied to you _again_ because that's all
> >>>>>>> they ever do. Luckily for them, they'll always find someone dumb
> >>>>>>> enough to believe them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But even here, they're conflating the height of storm waves with rising
> >>>>>> water. More intense storms create higher waves. Intense storms come from
> >>>>>> colder (not warmer) weather.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not true. Intense storms come from temeperature differences. The higher the
> >>>>> difference, the more intense the storm.
> >>>>> And hurricans come from warm water. Which needs warm temperatures
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The true measurement of "rising water" is
> >>>>>> where the ocean water rises to when it's calm. That hasn't changed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It has. Several centimeters by now. And it is rising
> >>>>
> >>>> Right. RonB looks at sources OTHER than science to try to learn about
> >>>> science... meaning he is not really trying to learn about science.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> 
> >>> Here's the science regarding "global warming":
> >>> https://www.nasa.gov/sun
> >>>   
> >>> 
> >> The sun certainly plays a factor
> >
> > LOL!
> 
> A factor of 100%. This is what passes as "science," but the man-made global 
> warming ninnies.
> 
> -- 
> The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.



You likely think Ubuntu handles the desktop well. Nope. Not compared to Windows. For others I would simply say it is questionable. Given that it's Bill Cunningham I would ignore that doubt and go straight to 'lie' because that's most of what Bill Cunningham does. Just call it a lie and watch him beg you to prove it. 

The majority of regulars in this group do application development either as a necessity or as a vocation, so I am skeptical anybody here consider writing macros to be "sorcery". 

And in retaliation you have nothing but a crack to start something. No one here has ever read my program, much less found a bug; still, in the dark recesses of my brain, I'm thinking, "My mistakes will come to haunt me", as if someone knew. Bill Cunningham doesn't have any clue what he is babbling about. 

- 
Get Rich Slow!
http://www.5z8.info/horse-slaughter_w8c4en_launchexe
https://youtu.be/TETJEkaUoY4
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web