Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
Date	2016-03-05 22:11 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<862sqc-gml.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <83da0def-e2cc-4739-8bf3-4923780539ef@googlegroups.com> <nlcqqc-uuf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <f88cbe78-4b71-4922-aef0-215b3a9b3d0e@googlegroups.com> <9jnrqc-7gk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <33b68fac-9b4b-4d9c-a1cb-5631bee76d51@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:16:05 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
>> >> >> about 7, and that is about it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
>> >> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
>> >> >> showing at a frat party
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
>> >> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
>> >> 
>> >> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.
>> > 
>> > I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
>> > are right and so completely unable to say how or why.
>> 
>> Again, I'm laughing my ass off over your delusions and have given you
>> several references to show you are an uneducated kook.
>> 
>> Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick and follow
>> that with Foundations of College Chemistry by Murphy and Rousseau.
>> 
>> Do you have a job that would enable you to afford to buy books?
> 
> I've looked in both of these books.  Nothing.  

Then you must be an uneducatable, illiterate idiot.


-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:53 -0800
  Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 00:39 +0000
    Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:50 -0800
      Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 03:34 +0000
        Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-04 22:48 -0600
          Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 20:52 -0800
            Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 06:58 +0000
              Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 06:25 -0800
                Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 19:11 +0000
                Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 11:34 -0800
                Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-05 22:11 +0000
      Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-05 13:07 -0800
  Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 19:01 -0600
  Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 16:52 -0800

csiph-web