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


#449435

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 16:07 -0700
Message-ID<fkkd5tFom7jU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449429
On 4/28/18 3:43 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't
>>>>>>> care less about Florida.  Let that shit sink.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_  scientific site that states a
>>>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott
>>>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_  scientific site and
>>>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser,
>>>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_
>>>>>> scientific site.
>>>>
>>>>> What does snit know about science?  He thinks psychology is a science.
>>>>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based
>>>>> on political pressure.
>>>>
>>>> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do.
>>>> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least
>>>> programming.
>>>>
>>>> No shame in either of those.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you know a lot about some junk science fields.
>>
>> And here you prove me right. Thanks!
>>
> 
> Prove you right about what?  That you know a lot
> about some junk science fields?  Well, if you accept
> a mere statement as proof, then that says a lot about
> your "scientific" mind, so I guess in a roundabout way
> it does prove that you are a junk science expert.
> 
> 
>>> What about Bigfoot and UFOs?
>>
>> What about them?
>>
> 
> How is climate change going to affect Bigfoot's
> habitat?  Will he be happy or sad to see more
> plant life spring up over the next few decades?
> 
> How is climate change going to affect UFOs?
> Will they need to add more solar shielding
> to protect themselves from that crazy Sun?
> 
> 
See: your lack of understanding of basic science, and your twisting of 
what I have said about science, proves me right.

I sincerely think you cannot help it.

As I said, if you REALLY want to know about climate science go to ANY 
scientific site on the topic.

-- 
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]


#449438

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2018-04-28 23:17 +0000
Message-ID<b9z08ga3.vhuo34@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#449435
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/18 3:43 PM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't
>>>>>>>> care less about Florida.  Let that shit sink.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_  scientific site that states a
>>>>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott
>>>>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_  scientific site and
>>>>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser,
>>>>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_
>>>>>>> scientific site.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What does snit know about science?  He thinks psychology is a science.
>>>>>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based
>>>>>> on political pressure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do.
>>>>> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least
>>>>> programming.
>>>>>
>>>>> No shame in either of those.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you know a lot about some junk science fields.
>>>
>>> And here you prove me right. Thanks!
>>>
>> 
>> Prove you right about what?  That you know a lot
>> about some junk science fields?  Well, if you accept
>> a mere statement as proof, then that says a lot about
>> your "scientific" mind, so I guess in a roundabout way
>> it does prove that you are a junk science expert.
>> 
>> 
>>>> What about Bigfoot and UFOs?
>>>
>>> What about them?
>>>
>> 
>> How is climate change going to affect Bigfoot's
>> habitat?  Will he be happy or sad to see more
>> plant life spring up over the next few decades?
>> 
>> How is climate change going to affect UFOs?
>> Will they need to add more solar shielding
>> to protect themselves from that crazy Sun?
>> 
>> 
> See: your lack of understanding of basic science, and your twisting of 
> what I have said about science, proves me right.
> 
> I sincerely think you cannot help it.
> 
> As I said, if you REALLY want to know about climate science go to ANY 
> scientific site on the topic.
> 

I've been to plenty, and the all say it's a bunch of crap, unfortunately.
I wish it weren't, because I want the Antarctic ice to melt so we can
explore.

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


#449446

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 16:42 -0700
Message-ID<fkkf7lFp263U3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449438
On 4/28/18 4:17 PM, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/18 3:43 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't
>>>>>>>>> care less about Florida.  Let that shit sink.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_  scientific site that states a
>>>>>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott
>>>>>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_  scientific site and
>>>>>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser,
>>>>>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_
>>>>>>>> scientific site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does snit know about science?  He thinks psychology is a science.
>>>>>>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based
>>>>>>> on political pressure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do.
>>>>>> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least
>>>>>> programming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No shame in either of those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you know a lot about some junk science fields.
>>>>
>>>> And here you prove me right. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Prove you right about what?  That you know a lot
>>> about some junk science fields?  Well, if you accept
>>> a mere statement as proof, then that says a lot about
>>> your "scientific" mind, so I guess in a roundabout way
>>> it does prove that you are a junk science expert.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> What about Bigfoot and UFOs?
>>>>
>>>> What about them?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How is climate change going to affect Bigfoot's
>>> habitat?  Will he be happy or sad to see more
>>> plant life spring up over the next few decades?
>>>
>>> How is climate change going to affect UFOs?
>>> Will they need to add more solar shielding
>>> to protect themselves from that crazy Sun?
>>>
>>>
>> See: your lack of understanding of basic science, and your twisting of
>> what I have said about science, proves me right.
>>
>> I sincerely think you cannot help it.
>>
>> As I said, if you REALLY want to know about climate science go to ANY
>> scientific site on the topic.
>>
> 
> I've been to plenty, and the all say it's a bunch of crap, unfortunately.
> I wish it weren't, because I want the Antarctic ice to melt so we can
> explore.
> 
OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept 
the evidence. We shall not agree.

-- 
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]


#449452

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 00:58 +0000
Message-ID<pc35bm$o2m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449446
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 16:42:45 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 4:17 PM, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/18 3:43 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 3:06 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/18 1:56 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I would love to see Antarctica uncovered in my lifetime, and I couldn't
>>>>>>>>>> care less about Florida.  Let that shit sink.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes owl, make sure you go to_ANY_  scientific site that states a
>>>>>>>>> position but makes sure that it states whatever position the Prescott
>>>>>>>>> cockroach agrees with otherwise go to any_OTHER_  scientific site and
>>>>>>>>> do the same. If you can't find one that agrees with Michael Glasser,
>>>>>>>>> make sure that you ask him to send you his pre-approved list of_ANY_
>>>>>>>>> scientific site.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does snit know about science?  He thinks psychology is a science.
>>>>>>>> You know, that field of "study" that changes its determinations based
>>>>>>>> on political pressure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I clearly know more about climate science and psychology than you do.
>>>>>>> You clearly know more than I do about computer science, or at least
>>>>>>> programming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No shame in either of those.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you know a lot about some junk science fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> And here you prove me right. Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove you right about what?  That you know a lot
>>>> about some junk science fields?  Well, if you accept
>>>> a mere statement as proof, then that says a lot about
>>>> your "scientific" mind, so I guess in a roundabout way
>>>> it does prove that you are a junk science expert.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What about Bigfoot and UFOs?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is climate change going to affect Bigfoot's
>>>> habitat?  Will he be happy or sad to see more
>>>> plant life spring up over the next few decades?
>>>>
>>>> How is climate change going to affect UFOs?
>>>> Will they need to add more solar shielding
>>>> to protect themselves from that crazy Sun?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> See: your lack of understanding of basic science, and your twisting of
>>> what I have said about science, proves me right.
>>>
>>> I sincerely think you cannot help it.
>>>
>>> As I said, if you REALLY want to know about climate science go to ANY
>>> scientific site on the topic.
>>>
>> 
>> I've been to plenty, and the all say it's a bunch of crap, unfortunately.
>> I wish it weren't, because I want the Antarctic ice to melt so we can
>> explore.
>> 
> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept 
> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>

It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.

If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
Where do you live?
Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449453

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 18:22 -0700
Message-ID<fkkl2gFq6hlU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449452
On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
...
>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
> 
> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.

You can call it either... I do not care.

> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.

Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm 
to populations?

> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.

So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.

> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
> Where do you live?
> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)

Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a 
relevant science site if you really want to learn.


-- 
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]


#449454

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 01:37 +0000
Message-ID<pc37l8$1k1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449453
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
> ...
>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>> 
>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>
> You can call it either... I do not care.
>
>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>
> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm 
> to populations?

Now you're thinking.

>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>
> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.

I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.

>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>> Where do you live?
>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>
> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a 
> relevant science site if you really want to learn.

Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449455

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 18:44 -0700
Message-ID<fkkmchFqe8fU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449454
On 4/28/18 6:37 PM, Brick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
>> ...
>>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>>>
>>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>>
>> You can call it either... I do not care.
>>
>>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>>
>> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm
>> to populations?
> 
> Now you're thinking.

You seem to think storms are not actually getting worse, contrary to the 
evidence. Why?

>>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>>
>> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.
> 
> I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.

OK, you think you know something contrary to the evidence. Again, this 
is why I suggest you look at scientific sites to educate yourself.

>>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>>> Where do you live?
>>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>>
>> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a
>> relevant science site if you really want to learn.
> 
> Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.

If you are not interested in science that is fine, but I think it is 
unwise of you to pretend to "know" things which are contrary to the 
evidence.


-- 
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]


#449456

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 01:53 +0000
Message-ID<pc38j3$1k1$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449455
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:49 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 6:37 PM, Brick wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>>>>
>>>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>>>
>>> You can call it either... I do not care.
>>>
>>>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>>>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>>>
>>> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm
>>> to populations?
>> 
>> Now you're thinking.
>
> You seem to think storms are not actually getting worse, contrary to the 
> evidence. Why?

Are we having more tornados, or more dopplar indicated tornados.
Are hurricanes worse, or are we just sending more planes out to measure higher wind
speeds compared to 1880?

>
>>>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>>>
>>> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.

Oh, I've seen bullshit before, calling it science is new to me.

>> I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.
>
> OK, you think you know something contrary to the evidence. Again, this 
> is why I suggest you look at scientific sites to educate yourself.

Educated means indoctrinated now?
No thanks.

>>>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>>>> Where do you live?
>>>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>>>
>>> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a
>>> relevant science site if you really want to learn.
>> 
>> Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.
>
> If you are not interested in science that is fine, but I think it is 
> unwise of you to pretend to "know" things which are contrary to the 
> evidence.

No zombies here.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449457

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 19:06 -0700
Message-ID<fkknl6Fqml1U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449456
On 4/28/18 6:53 PM, Brick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:49 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>> On 4/28/18 6:37 PM, Brick wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>>>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>>>>
>>>> You can call it either... I do not care.
>>>>
>>>>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>>>>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>>>>
>>>> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm
>>>> to populations?
>>>
>>> Now you're thinking.
>>
>> You seem to think storms are not actually getting worse, contrary to the
>> evidence. Why?
> 
> Are we having more tornados, or more dopplar indicated tornados.
> Are hurricanes worse, or are we just sending more planes out to measure higher wind
> speeds compared to 1880?

Again, I suggest you go to multiple scientific websites to get a better 
understanding of this, but here is a good start:

<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php>

>>>>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>>>>
>>>> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.
> 
> Oh, I've seen bullshit before, calling it science is new to me.

Again: if you want to know the science, go to the website of the 
scientific organizations. Look at their references.

>>> I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.
>>
>> OK, you think you know something contrary to the evidence. Again, this
>> is why I suggest you look at scientific sites to educate yourself.
> 
> Educated means indoctrinated now?
> No thanks.

If you think learning about the evidence and the science is 
"indoctrination" that is your issue.

>>>>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>>>>> Where do you live?
>>>>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>>>>
>>>> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a
>>>> relevant science site if you really want to learn.
>>>
>>> Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.
>>
>> If you are not interested in science that is fine, but I think it is
>> unwise of you to pretend to "know" things which are contrary to the
>> evidence.
> 
> No zombies here.

This is not the Walking Dead.


-- 
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]


#449458

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 02:16 +0000
Message-ID<pc39tv$1k1$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449457
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:06:29 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 6:53 PM, Brick wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:49 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>> On 4/28/18 6:37 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>>>>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can call it either... I do not care.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>>>>>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm
>>>>> to populations?
>>>>
>>>> Now you're thinking.
>>>
>>> You seem to think storms are not actually getting worse, contrary to the
>>> evidence. Why?
>> 
>> Are we having more tornados, or more dopplar indicated tornados.
>> Are hurricanes worse, or are we just sending more planes out to measure higher wind
>> speeds compared to 1880?
>
> Again, I suggest you go to multiple scientific websites to get a better 
> understanding of this, but here is a good start:
>
><https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php>

Rising costs?
Is there something there about beach homes, which were little more than shacks when I
was a kid, have been replaced by McBeach Mansions owned by douchbags that need the
poor to subsidize their insurance?

Useless info.

>
>>>>>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.
>> 
>> Oh, I've seen bullshit before, calling it science is new to me.
>
> Again: if you want to know the science, go to the website of the 
> scientific organizations. Look at their references.

Puh Shaw !!

>>>> I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.
>>>
>>> OK, you think you know something contrary to the evidence. Again, this
>>> is why I suggest you look at scientific sites to educate yourself.
>> 
>> Educated means indoctrinated now?
>> No thanks.
>
> If you think learning about the evidence and the science is 
> "indoctrination" that is your issue.

I think learning requires more than reading, followed by full acceptance.

>>>>>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>>>>>> Where do you live?
>>>>>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a
>>>>> relevant science site if you really want to learn.
>>>>
>>>> Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.
>>>
>>> If you are not interested in science that is fine, but I think it is
>>> unwise of you to pretend to "know" things which are contrary to the
>>> evidence.
>> 
>> No zombies here.
>
> This is not the Walking Dead.

It's in your head.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449459

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 19:30 -0700
Message-ID<fkkp2oFqv78U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449458
On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:06:29 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>> On 4/28/18 6:53 PM, Brick wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:49 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>> On 4/28/18 6:37 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:22:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>>>> On 4/28/18 5:58 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> OK, you think the science is "a bunch of crap" and you deny it. I accept
>>>>>>>> the evidence. We shall not agree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was Global Warming, then Climate Change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can call it either... I do not care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next it will be called As The World Turns, I Need A Profession.
>>>>>>> Seems obvious that storms get worse as populations explode in storm prone areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would that makes storms worse and not just make then cause more harm
>>>>>> to populations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're thinking.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think storms are not actually getting worse, contrary to the
>>>> evidence. Why?
>>>
>>> Are we having more tornados, or more dopplar indicated tornados.
>>> Are hurricanes worse, or are we just sending more planes out to measure higher wind
>>> speeds compared to 1880?
>>
>> Again, I suggest you go to multiple scientific websites to get a better
>> understanding of this, but here is a good start:
>>
>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php>
> 
> Rising costs?
> Is there something there about beach homes, which were little more than shacks when I
> was a kid, have been replaced by McBeach Mansions owned by douchbags that need the
> poor to subsidize their insurance?
> 
> Useless info.

I agree that information is not even slightly relevant or useful in 
understanding ocean level rising, though of course it will be impacted 
by it. It also ties into our socializing of the costs of the rich.

>>>>>>> The oceans will *seem* to rise as wetlands are filled to accomodate more people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you deny they are really rising. OK, you do not know the science.
>>>
>>> Oh, I've seen bullshit before, calling it science is new to me.
>>
>> Again: if you want to know the science, go to the website of the
>> scientific organizations. Look at their references.
> 
> Puh Shaw !!

Already established you have disdain for evidence, reason, logic, etc., 
at least in this area.

Not sure what your goal in moving forward is.

>>>>> I know they're not rising... execpt near poor islands that want money.
>>>>
>>>> OK, you think you know something contrary to the evidence. Again, this
>>>> is why I suggest you look at scientific sites to educate yourself.
>>>
>>> Educated means indoctrinated now?
>>> No thanks.
>>
>> If you think learning about the evidence and the science is
>> "indoctrination" that is your issue.
> 
> I think learning requires more than reading, followed by full acceptance.

Do you believe in plate tectonics? How about the force of gravity being 
inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of 
that mass? Germ theory?

I am all for doing more than reading... but when you look at ALL the 
knowledge an educated person needs you cannot double check all of it, 
and if you did you could not be sure you did not have biases (not that 
you ever can, but without peer review and the like there is a higher 
chance).

>>>>>>> If we really want to reduce CO2, we should start deploying some nukes.
>>>>>>> Where do you live?
>>>>>>> Exact coordinates improve accuracy :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Move topics as you wish. This one is dead anyway. As I said, go to a
>>>>>> relevant science site if you really want to learn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really interested in what science zombies had implanted in their heads.
>>>>
>>>> If you are not interested in science that is fine, but I think it is
>>>> unwise of you to pretend to "know" things which are contrary to the
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> No zombies here.
>>
>> This is not the Walking Dead.
> 
> It's in your head.

There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in 
my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific 
sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.


-- 
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]


#449460

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 02:44 +0000
Message-ID<pc3bim$1k1$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449459
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:30:46 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:

SNIP

>> 
>> It's in your head.
>
> There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in 
> my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific 
> sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.

You will see this is a trend, nothing more.
This warming won't last long, though I'm not sure why intelligent people
are concerned about ice from the last Ice Age melting.

Maybe they prefer an ice age, where all the crops die.
Crop failures are good for the economy, to zombies.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449461

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 19:46 -0700
Message-ID<fkkq00Fr4euU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449460
On 4/28/18 7:44 PM, Brick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:30:46 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>> On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
>>>
>>> It's in your head.
>>
>> There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in
>> my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific
>> sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.
> 
> You will see this is a trend, nothing more.
> This warming won't last long, though I'm not sure why intelligent people
> are concerned about ice from the last Ice Age melting.
> 
> Maybe they prefer an ice age, where all the crops die.
> Crop failures are good for the economy, to zombies.
> 
Why not try to learn some about the 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]


#449462

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 02:54 +0000
Message-ID<pc3c5s$1k1$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449461
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:46:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 7:44 PM, Brick wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:30:46 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>> On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:
>> 
>> SNIP
>> 
>>>>
>>>> It's in your head.
>>>
>>> There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in
>>> my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific
>>> sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.
>> 
>> You will see this is a trend, nothing more.
>> This warming won't last long, though I'm not sure why intelligent people
>> are concerned about ice from the last Ice Age melting.
>> 
>> Maybe they prefer an ice age, where all the crops die.
>> Crop failures are good for the economy, to zombies.
>> 
> Why not try to learn some about the science?
>

Well, as a matter of fact, I know all about the science of FEMA money.
Taxpayers nation-wide now pay for local beaches, drainage repairs.
Thanks.
When it cools off, we'll get you to pay for salting the roads.
Your fucking cars are changing the climate to get colder.
Wahhh, Wahhh, where's our money.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449463

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-28 20:00 -0700
Message-ID<fkkqpgFr993U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449462
On 4/28/18 7:54 PM, Brick wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:46:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>> On 4/28/18 7:44 PM, Brick wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:30:46 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>> On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's in your head.
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in
>>>> my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific
>>>> sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.
>>>
>>> You will see this is a trend, nothing more.
>>> This warming won't last long, though I'm not sure why intelligent people
>>> are concerned about ice from the last Ice Age melting.
>>>
>>> Maybe they prefer an ice age, where all the crops die.
>>> Crop failures are good for the economy, to zombies.
>>>
>> Why not try to learn some about the science?
>>
> 
> Well, as a matter of fact, I know all about the science of FEMA money.
> Taxpayers nation-wide now pay for local beaches, drainage repairs.
> Thanks.
> When it cools off, we'll get you to pay for salting the roads.
> Your fucking cars are changing the climate to get colder.
> Wahhh, Wahhh, where's our money.

You change topics a lot.


-- 
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]


#449464

FromBrick <brick@mortar.invalid>
Date2018-04-29 03:03 +0000
Message-ID<pc3cm5$1k1$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#449463
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 20:00:00 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
> On 4/28/18 7:54 PM, Brick wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:46:24 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>> On 4/28/18 7:44 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:30:46 -0700, Snit, thunk thusly:
>>>>> On 4/28/18 7:16 PM, Brick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SNIP
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's in your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a lot of scientific knowledge and understanding of the data in
>>>>> my head. Sure. Still, you would be better served going to scientific
>>>>> sites instead of just speaking to me and then pushing ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> You will see this is a trend, nothing more.
>>>> This warming won't last long, though I'm not sure why intelligent people
>>>> are concerned about ice from the last Ice Age melting.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe they prefer an ice age, where all the crops die.
>>>> Crop failures are good for the economy, to zombies.
>>>>
>>> Why not try to learn some about the science?
>>>
>> 
>> Well, as a matter of fact, I know all about the science of FEMA money.
>> Taxpayers nation-wide now pay for local beaches, drainage repairs.
>> Thanks.
>> When it cools off, we'll get you to pay for salting the roads.
>> Your fucking cars are changing the climate to get colder.
>> Wahhh, Wahhh, where's our money.
>
> You change topics a lot.
>
>
The climate changes alot.
Manipulating revenue stays the same.

I haven't changed a topic, I focused it with reality lenses.

-- 
Brick Mortar

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


#449479 — Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.

FromJeff-Relf.Me @.
Date2018-04-29 04:44 -0700
SubjectOur planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.
Message-ID<Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.29--4.44am.Seattle.2018>
In reply to#449464
Our climate is changing ?  Everything changes.

Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago,
because it's warmer, with more carbon dioxide.

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


#449480 — Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.

FromSteven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com>
Date2018-04-29 05:13 -0700
SubjectRe: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.
Message-ID<cfe03063-9f0b-4371-b4b7-339e2f455d15@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#449479
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 4:44:57 AM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Our climate is changing ?  Everything changes.
> 
> Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago,
> because it's warmer, with more carbon dioxide.



So what's Bill 'The Shill' Cunningham's method for the flooding nonsense? FileMaker? That is the only tool he knows, and it is a joke. He must be abusing it to produce these stupid "group-killer" garbage posts. Here is my theory, Bill 'The Shill' Cunningham took the chatbot that he hacked and blamed MuahMan for... he's feeding it data from the program, grabbing "special" paragraphs, then altering those using Pseudo-Context Free Grammar and then he actively posts them because his insomnia enables him to do that close to ceaselessly. Why does Bill 'The Shill' Cunningham focus on MuahMan's self-esteem issues so much? I will intoxicate Bill 'The Shill' Cunningham with my mind. 

--
Eight things to never feed your dog!
Michael Glasser: Prescott Computer Guy
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglvCo3dJ38&feature=youtu.be
http://www.5z8.info/hackwebcam_e9z2tw_friendster-of-sex
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

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


#449574 — Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.

FromDoomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s>
Date2018-04-29 19:21 -0400
SubjectRe: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.
Message-ID<lpkcedthi7pv24urcqc8ni5khj2s245ooo@4ax.com>
In reply to#449479
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:44:57 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:

>Our climate is changing ?  Everything changes.
>
>Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago,
>because it's warmer, with more carbon dioxide.

And you know it's true because shoeless Jeff Relf, who takes a dump in
a bucket, is the authority on science. 

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


#449591 — Re: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2018-04-29 16:54 -0700
SubjectRe: Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago.
Message-ID<fkn49oFca94U6@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#449574
On 4/29/18 4:21 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 04:44:57 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:
> 
>> Our climate is changing ?  Everything changes.
>>
>> Our planet is greener now, vs. 100 years ago,
>> because it's warmer, with more carbon dioxide.
> 
> And you know it's true because shoeless Jeff Relf, who takes a dump in
> a bucket, is the authority on science.
> 

My .sig is right again!

-- 
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]


Page 3 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