Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #449199 > unrolled thread
| Started by | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-26 11:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-27 18:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 11:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5k0hedlo34irljr1a1kfqiuksiiaqpj0ki@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449792 |
On Tue, 1 May 2018 03:34:03 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >On 2018-04-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 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 warm air has to hit COLD air, right? If the weather was milder in the >northern hemisphere, storms would be less intense. It's not rocket science. > >Meanwhile this winter has been the coldest since 1895 in North America. >Coldest April in recorded history. Greatest two year cooling event in a >century. The collapse of world-wide wine output. Crops not being planted >this year in the northern United States because there's still snow. "Global >WARMING" sure causes strange events, doesn't it? Here in Cubec (my new term for Quebec since it's beginning to look more and more like Cuba), we had three weeks of constant -25c and lower during the month of December. It never gets that cold before February yet we had such devastating weather until a few weeks ago. That also ignores the almost record amounts of snow we received. Meanwhile, this weather phenomenon will be explained by the scientists who kept talking about global warming as evidence of their idiotic theory. Global warming is essentially responsible for more warmth and cold simultaneously. It is responsible for more rain and more drought. In other words, what has been happening for thousands of years, predictable or not, is all the result of human activity since the Industrial Era and taxing overtaxed people to the benefit of a select few rich people is the only solution. >And why isn't Florida under water yet? Surely it should be by now, shouldn't >it? And why does it keep snowing when the global warming morons were >lamenting about how "our children won't see snow." Complete and utter >bullshit. Only the extremely gullible fall for this crap. Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up becoming liberals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkreoaFb6neU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449868 |
Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2018 03:34:03 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 2018-04-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 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 warm air has to hit COLD air, right? If the weather was milder in the >> northern hemisphere, storms would be less intense. It's not rocket science. >> >> Meanwhile this winter has been the coldest since 1895 in North America. >> Coldest April in recorded history. Greatest two year cooling event in a >> century. The collapse of world-wide wine output. Crops not being planted >> this year in the northern United States because there's still snow. "Global >> WARMING" sure causes strange events, doesn't it? > > Here in Cubec (my new term for Quebec since it's beginning to look > more and more like Cuba), we had three weeks of constant -25c and > lower during the month of December. It never gets that cold before > February yet we had such devastating weather until a few weeks ago. > That also ignores the almost record amounts of snow we received. > > Meanwhile, this weather phenomenon will be explained by the scientists > who kept talking about global warming as evidence of their idiotic > theory. Global warming is essentially responsible for more warmth and > cold simultaneously. It is responsible for more rain and more drought. > In other words, what has been happening for thousands of years, > predictable or not, is all the result of human activity since the > Industrial Era and taxing overtaxed people to the benefit of a select > few rich people is the only solution. > >> And why isn't Florida under water yet? Surely it should be by now, shouldn't >> it? And why does it keep snowing when the global warming morons were >> lamenting about how "our children won't see snow." Complete and utter >> bullshit. Only the extremely gullible fall for this crap. > > Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up becoming liberals. > Why not try to learn about the science? What about being educated scares you so much?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pcav9g$7al$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #449868 |
Doomsdrzej wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up becoming liberals. Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up thinking "liberals" and "conservative" are useful terms to categorize people. I prefer "sensible" versus "nonsensical". Or "fact following" versus "dogma following". But, sigh, those terms, too, are susceptible to the twisting of meaning. Hence my desire to "check out". I've come to dislike arguing. I want to enjoy activities in GitHub and with family and friends. Anyway, Dooms, enjoy life and be happy you're in a free country. -- Q: What is the sound of one cat napping? A: Mu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-02 07:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jk9jedlq42mn0g55i7vf65hjatb4hd9df1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449960 |
On Tue, 1 May 2018 19:47:15 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >Doomsdrzej wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up becoming liberals. > >Only extremely stupid and gullible people end up thinking "liberals" >and "conservative" are useful terms to categorize people. I prefer >"sensible" versus "nonsensical". Or "fact following" versus "dogma >following". But, sigh, those terms, too, are susceptible to the twisting of >meaning. > >Hence my desire to "check out". I've come to dislike arguing. I want >to enjoy activities in GitHub and with family and friends. > >Anyway, Dooms, enjoy life and be happy you're in a free country. You're not wrong. I've disconnected somewhat from politics over the last few months as a necessity to maintain my sanity. I have to admit that I like people a lot better when I don't know or even care whether they are left or right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 09:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pc4j0k$e1m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #449350 |
a.m wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now > are now admitting that they were wrong. No scientist has ever said that. -- Someone is speaking well of you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52f079a5-45db-42ae-8d2f-e9921e07c958@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #449487 |
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 6:57:41 AM UTC-7, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > a.m wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > > > The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now > > are now admitting that they were wrong. > > No scientist has ever said that. > > -- > Someone is speaking well of you. Ha! Right, Jasen Betts is trying to market a programming interface reference, which anyone can get for free, that I taught myself. If he wasn't so stupid he'd understand how clueless he sounds. Linux is based on Linux. Of course. owl clearly has a LOT of knowledge to demonstrate and he seems to want to answer questions. Unfortunately, this is arguably the most frustrating place for doing that because much of the responses are insulting, trickery, and other malarky. He'd have to be suffering from mental illness to be unsure of whether or not he "never had" purchased a website with owl. Ring any bells? When Jasen Betts can not keep his lies straight and utilizes bogus, self-esteem protecting crap later, it's damn apparent what his game is. Oh goodness, that is just tons of kvetching. - This broke the Internet https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfkup/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than/= http://tinyurl.com/kmqe66h Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-29 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkmdh9F7f7rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449487 |
On 4/29/18 6:40 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > a.m wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >> are now admitting that they were wrong. > > No scientist has ever said that. > Right... it is similar to the nonsense about how in the '70s the consensus was for global cooling. Nope. Even then there was a consensus about warming, though the consensus was not as strong as it is now. And that is a good thing... as we learn and get more evidence we understand things better. Gee, what a thought! -- 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 | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pl4eedthb8omkgt71bmfvpmdabk8c1esri@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449487 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > a.m wrote: >> >> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >> are now admitting that they were wrong. > > No scientist has ever said that. You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? So dishonest. -- "For some reason the mindless droids here equate anything open source with somehow being technically superior." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-30 14:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <odhjre-5t3.ln1@debian.machineone.org> |
| In reply to | #449627 |
On 30/4/2018 14:03 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv posted: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> a.m wrote: >>> >>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >> >> No scientist has ever said that. > > You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? > > So dishonest. Just following their leader's, Agent Orange, examples. -- By W3Cook's analysis of Alexa's data, 96.3 percent of the top 1 million web servers are running Linux. The remainder is split between Windows, 1.9 percent, and FreeBSD, 1.8 percent. ZDNet - October 2015.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 03:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pc8nqq$5a1$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #449627 |
On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> a.m wrote: >>> >>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >> >> No scientist has ever said that. > > You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? > > So dishonest. Right. And left-wing lying bullshit is so "honest" isn't it? Just like "man-made global cooling" in the 70s, "man-made global warming" in the 90s is just more lying bullshit. No sunspots means we're actually going into a cooling period. (Hence record colds and high ice coverage in the Great Lakes this winter.) How long before the "man-made global warming" morons get the memo? -- The more I see of Windows, the more I like Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkq9keF30i8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449802 |
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> a.m wrote: >>>> >>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>> >>> No scientist has ever said that. >> >> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >> >> So dishonest. > > Right. And left-wing lying bullshit is so "honest" isn't it? Just like > "man-made global cooling" in the 70s, "man-made global warming" in the 90s > is just more lying bullshit. > > No sunspots means we're actually going into a cooling period. (Hence record > colds and high ice coverage in the Great Lakes this winter.) How long before > the "man-made global warming" morons get the memo? > I mentioned the nonsense claim about a cooling consensus in the ‘70s. Here RonB is proving me right that he believes that nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdzc8b908g.hau@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449806 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> a.m wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>> >>>> No scientist has ever said that. >>> >>> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >>> >>> So dishonest. >> >> Right. And left-wing lying bullshit is so "honest" isn't it? Just like >> "man-made global cooling" in the 70s, "man-made global warming" in the 90s >> is just more lying bullshit. >> >> No sunspots means we're actually going into a cooling period. (Hence record >> colds and high ice coverage in the Great Lakes this winter.) How long before >> the "man-made global warming" morons get the memo? >> > > I mentioned the nonsense claim about a cooling consensus in the ‘70s. Here > RonB is proving me right that he believes that nonsense. > Snit, the cooling talk was all over the place in the 70s. I was alive then and remember it. Oh, and we also had Carl Sagan going on and on about "nuclear winter." And there was acid rain killing all the trees on the mountain tops. And there was that ecology flag, and Earth Day, and a bunch of other crap. But I don't recall ever hearing a thing back then about "Global Warming." Here's Cronkite talking about global cooling in 1972: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hms8rggsMDQ Here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA This is pretty cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUYnHxtFYlM And there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science <quote> In the early 1970s, evidence that aerosols were increasing worldwide encouraged Reid Bryson and some others to warn of the possibility of severe cooling. Meanwhile, the new evidence that the timing of ice ages was set by predictable orbital cycles suggested that the climate would gradually cool, over thousands of years. ... Several scientific panels from this time period concluded that more research was needed to determine whether warming or cooling was likely, indicating that the trend in the scientific literature had not yet become a consensus.[34][35][36] ... The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change."[41] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[41] </quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 05:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkqcm5F3k0oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449810 |
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> a.m wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>>> >>>>> No scientist has ever said that. >>>> >>>> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >>>> >>>> So dishonest. >>> >>> Right. And left-wing lying bullshit is so "honest" isn't it? Just like >>> "man-made global cooling" in the 70s, "man-made global warming" in the 90s >>> is just more lying bullshit. >>> >>> No sunspots means we're actually going into a cooling period. (Hence record >>> colds and high ice coverage in the Great Lakes this winter.) How long before >>> the "man-made global warming" morons get the memo? >>> >> >> I mentioned the nonsense claim about a cooling consensus in the ‘70s. Here >> RonB is proving me right that he believes that nonsense. >> > > Snit, the cooling talk was all over the place in the 70s. I was alive > then and remember it. Oh, and we also had Carl Sagan going on and on > about "nuclear winter." And there was acid rain killing all the trees > on the mountain tops. And there was that ecology flag, and Earth Day, > and a bunch of other crap. But I don't recall ever hearing a thing back > then about "Global Warming." > > Here's Cronkite talking about global cooling in 1972: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hms8rggsMDQ > > Here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it 1978: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA > > This is pretty cool: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUYnHxtFYlM > > And there's this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science > <quote> > In the early 1970s, evidence that aerosols were increasing worldwide > encouraged Reid Bryson and some others to warn of the possibility of > severe cooling. Meanwhile, the new evidence that the timing of ice ages > was set by predictable orbital cycles suggested that the climate would > gradually cool, over thousands of years. > ... > Several scientific panels from this time period concluded that more > research was needed to determine whether warming or cooling was likely, > indicating that the trend in the scientific literature had not yet become > a consensus.[34][35][36] > ... > The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the > minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek > magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's > weather patterns have begun to change."[41] The article continued by > stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists > were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[41] > </quote> > > > As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the nuclear winter. Oy. Why not learn a little about the science?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 06:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <f8z0xb80e.euu@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #449812 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> a.m wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> No scientist has ever said that. >>>>> >>>>> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >>>>> >>>>> So dishonest. >>>> >>>> Right. And left-wing lying bullshit is so "honest" isn't it? Just like >>>> "man-made global cooling" in the 70s, "man-made global warming" in the 90s >>>> is just more lying bullshit. >>>> >>>> No sunspots means we're actually going into a cooling period. (Hence record >>>> colds and high ice coverage in the Great Lakes this winter.) How long before >>>> the "man-made global warming" morons get the memo? >>>> >>> >>> I mentioned the nonsense claim about a cooling consensus in the ‘70s. Here >>> RonB is proving me right that he believes that nonsense. >>> >> >> Snit, the cooling talk was all over the place in the 70s. I was alive >> then and remember it. Oh, and we also had Carl Sagan going on and on >> about "nuclear winter." And there was acid rain killing all the trees >> on the mountain tops. And there was that ecology flag, and Earth Day, >> and a bunch of other crap. But I don't recall ever hearing a thing back >> then about "Global Warming." >> >> Here's Cronkite talking about global cooling in 1972: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hms8rggsMDQ >> >> Here's Leonard Nimoy talking about it 1978: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA >> >> This is pretty cool: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUYnHxtFYlM >> >> And there's this: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science >> <quote> >> In the early 1970s, evidence that aerosols were increasing worldwide >> encouraged Reid Bryson and some others to warn of the possibility of >> severe cooling. Meanwhile, the new evidence that the timing of ice ages >> was set by predictable orbital cycles suggested that the climate would >> gradually cool, over thousands of years. >> ... >> Several scientific panels from this time period concluded that more >> research was needed to determine whether warming or cooling was likely, >> indicating that the trend in the scientific literature had not yet become >> a consensus.[34][35][36] >> ... >> The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the >> minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek >> magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's >> weather patterns have begun to change."[41] The article continued by >> stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists >> were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[41] >> </quote> >> >> >> > > As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, > though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the > nuclear winter. Oy. > The only confusion here is that related to your reading comprehension. As usual. > Why not learn a little about the science? > Why not learn a little about the *history* of science. You'll find that the science is often wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fkrav8Fab5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449813 |
On 4/30/18 11:09 PM, owl wrote: >> As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, >> though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the >> nuclear winter. Oy. >> > The only confusion here is that related to your reading comprehension. > As usual. > > <https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1> From 1965 to 1979 there was a 1:6 ratio in papers predicting cooling vs. warming, yet you think there was a consensus about cooling. Add to that you confused nuclear winter with man-made global climate change from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Since then, of course, our knowledge has grown... now there are ZERO relevant scientific organizations which deny climate change, and FAR more papers and research, and that research almost universally concludes and supports the fact that man-made global climate change is real and is happening now. Again, I keep telling you if you want to understand the science you should look to scientific organizations and scientific research. You clearly are not. You have started with the conclusion that the science is wrong and are seeking to confirm your bias. Your actions are the exact opposite of how critical thinking works. -- 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 | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5b%FC.63035$zt5.42317@fx11.am4> |
| In reply to | #449854 |
On 2018-05-01, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/30/18 11:09 PM, owl wrote: >>> As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, >>> though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the >>> nuclear winter. Oy. >>> >> The only confusion here is that related to your reading comprehension. >> As usual. >> >> ><https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1> > > From 1965 to 1979 there was a 1:6 ratio in papers predicting cooling > vs. warming, yet you think there was a consensus about cooling. Add to > that you confused nuclear winter with man-made global climate change > from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. > > Since then, of course, our knowledge has grown... now there are ZERO > relevant scientific organizations which deny climate change, and FAR > more papers and research, and that research almost universally concludes > and supports the fact that man-made global climate change is real and is > happening now. How is that? Climate change how? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fkrdg2FatipU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #449859 |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On 2018-05-01, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/30/18 11:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>> As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, >>>> though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the >>>> nuclear winter. Oy. >>>> >>> The only confusion here is that related to your reading comprehension. >>> As usual. >>> >>> >> <https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1> >> >> From 1965 to 1979 there was a 1:6 ratio in papers predicting cooling >> vs. warming, yet you think there was a consensus about cooling. Add to >> that you confused nuclear winter with man-made global climate change >> from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. >> >> Since then, of course, our knowledge has grown... now there are ZERO >> relevant scientific organizations which deny climate change, and FAR >> more papers and research, and that research almost universally concludes >> and supports the fact that man-made global climate change is real and is >> happening now. > > How is that? Climate change how? > How? Mostly from man’s influence. Read ANY relevant scientific site for more info.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Xi%FC.113678$sc1.60228@fx09.am4> |
| In reply to | #449861 |
On 2018-05-01, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> On 2018-05-01, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/30/18 11:09 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> As I figured, you incorrectly think there was a consensus on cooling, >>>>> though I admit I did not expect you to confuse it with the idea of the >>>>> nuclear winter. Oy. >>>>> >>>> The only confusion here is that related to your reading comprehension. >>>> As usual. >>>> >>>> >>> <https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1> >>> >>> From 1965 to 1979 there was a 1:6 ratio in papers predicting cooling >>> vs. warming, yet you think there was a consensus about cooling. Add to >>> that you confused nuclear winter with man-made global climate change >>> from CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. >>> >>> Since then, of course, our knowledge has grown... now there are ZERO >>> relevant scientific organizations which deny climate change, and FAR >>> more papers and research, and that research almost universally concludes >>> and supports the fact that man-made global climate change is real and is >>> happening now. >> >> How is that? Climate change how? >> > > How? Mostly from man’s influence. Read ANY relevant scientific site for > more info. Man's influence? Hahahahhahahahhaha. > -- press any key to continue or any other to quit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 07:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jelged59hu5nm3715dkop7ae4a4gtedmuq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449802 |
RonB wrote: >On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> a.m wrote: >>>> >>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>> >>> No scientist has ever said that. >> >> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >> >> So dishonest. > >Right. I know I am. BTW, being "wrong" is not the same as lying, like so many right-wingers do. An example is above. Right-wingers claiming the the left lies are like Wintrolls claiming that FOSS advocates lie. Very ironic, to say the least. -- 'Unlike the linux "advocates" where any person or any company that is successful is hated and despised. Anyone who so much as "dares" to charge for a service or product is labeled as a villian because "everything must be free."' - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-01 11:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <if1hedhg3282jc5rpm6jdd480r3rcp6ahn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #449837 |
On Tue, 01 May 2018 07:01:59 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >RonB wrote: > >>On 2018-04-30, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> a.m wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The same scientists who claimed that we'd all be underwater right now >>>>> are now admitting that they were wrong. >>>> >>>> No scientist has ever said that. >>> >>> You gotta "love" right-wing propaganda, eh? >>> >>> So dishonest. >> >>Right. > >I know I am. BTW, being "wrong" is not the same as lying, like so >many right-wingers do. An example is above. > >Right-wingers claiming the the left lies are like Wintrolls claiming >that FOSS advocates lie. Very ironic, to say the least. Good point. Both sides lie and both are unreasonable in some way or another. It would be great to get along again but it seems that it's become impossible at the moment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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