Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #721729
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy, talk.politics.guns, sci.physics, alt.checkmate |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Date | 2018-12-31 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g8upasF7rmpU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <g8t3riFreolU3@mid.individual.net> <sn1j2elje27mlrtnm7due53tsnshkt74ni@4ax.com> <g8tg4vFtm7jU9@mid.individual.net> <laaj2epu85u6ib5nh6tq1kisuujdhmmnca@4ax.com> <g8tqu8F1fmbU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:18:54 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> On 12/30/18 8:04 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/30/18 4:44 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 21:50:01 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 20:52:17 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2018 16:08:33 GMT, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:52:12 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:37 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 19:33:00 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/18 7:12 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:25:59 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 9:19 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:37:43 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 8:18 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 19:02:33 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 6:49 PM, Wally W. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:00:31 -0700, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/28/18 4:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit replied: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly and wastefully so: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/02/07/the-great-delusion/#more-12926> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In centuries hence the global warming boogey man will be seen for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what it is ? The Great Delusion. Future generations will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deny climate science. Good to know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you spew non sequiturs. Not necessarily good to know, just an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't "deny climate science," I say the FUD derived from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climastrology is a crock. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was invented to make astrology look respectable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never heard of it... but I tend to stick to science and avoid astrology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And do you accept the view of every single scientific organization on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is ***the*** view of "every single scientific organization on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From that link: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global effects, and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? People could manage future climate change impacts through intense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts at reducing further warming while preparing for any unavoidable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> climate changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you claim that single, monolithic view exists in the wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the quote, above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare with: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ferociously insist ? as politicians and activists do ? that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man-made climate change is real is meaningless. That remark is worthy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a child. It demonstrates no sophistication whatsoever. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is on the list of fewer than 70 scientists who deny the general view: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I never said those folks did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are longer lists, including: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting how you did not fact check your claim: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of anthropogenic global warming. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's False >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The petition was created by individuals and groups with political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science to sign. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, the meaning of "scientist" is vague. The minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement is a bachelor?s of science degree. That?s no guarantee that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the person studied a science related to climate change, or that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person pursued a career in science. The petition?s website says that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12,715 signers hold "BS or equivalent academic degrees." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at the number of people with some sort of background in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields that tie directly to climate change, the petition website said, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "there are 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the physical environment of the Earth." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be about 12 percent of the total. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are, according to the site, 9,029 people with PhDs, which comes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closer to meeting a higher bar for being thought of as a scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on the site?s figures, most of them don?t specialize in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, but they likely are more familiar with scientific methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These important nuances get lost. A 2012 opinion piece in Forbes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described the signers as "more than 31,000 American scientists from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diverse climate-related disciplines." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That?s way off the mark, unless you count veterinarians -- one of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> degrees that qualifies you as a scientist in the petition project -- and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicians. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We also don?t know much about when people signed the petition. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> website tells us that thousands of signatures came in 1998 and 1999 when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the petition was first circulated. It also says, "The majority of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2007." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is, the scientific consensus on mankind?s role in climate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change has grown over time. Even if more than half of the signers came >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after that date, it doesn?t mean that those who came before remain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skeptical of climate change. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many of "every single scientific organization on the planet" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *any* expertise in climastrology? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is EVERY SINGLE ONE with a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone can make a comment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So even if some who have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> comment are not ones we should see as reputable on the topic, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... you cite them anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>>> single one we SHOULD count as reputable on the topic accepts the general >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do opinions of people without qualifications in an area with no >>>>>>>>>>>> relevance to their training or work have any weight with you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To be fair, there are likely some in those ranks who do not accept it... >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the 70 or so listed, but only those fewer than 70 are known to >>>>>>>>>>>>> actively reject it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ... counted by whom? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and deny the general consensus. And some of them are >>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer alive... so they may very well have accepted the growing >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: one has to HEAVILY hand pick to find scientists who reject >>>>>>>>>>>>> the general consensus >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What "general consensus?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why must you walk-back a scientific, fact-based "consensus" with the >>>>>>>>>>>> qualitative weasel-word "general?" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If one isn't a closed-minded greenie, one only needs to listen when >>>>>>>>>>>> people make themselves known. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "You can observe a lot by just watching." - Yogi Berra >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The people who are brave enough to buck a fraudlant "consensus" are >>>>>>>>>>>> more worthy of a hearing than those who cave to the pressure to >>>>>>>>>>>> conform. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.inquisitr.com/1299796/climate-change-editorial-gets-professor-fired-from-think-tank/> >>>>>>>>>>>> If people ever say that fears of censorship for ?climate change? views >>>>>>>>>>>> are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I >>>>>>>>>>>> published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be >>>>>>>>>>>> allowed the ?all of the above? energy strategy we have in the U.S., >>>>>>>>>>>> the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> with them? because my analysis and theirs ?diverge.? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on very strong evidence. And I am sure you >>>>>>>>>>>>> can find some scientists who insist man never made it to the moon. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False analogy. Not even a good try. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that didn't stop you from claiming them, did it? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The analogy is excellent. There is amazingly strong evidence man went to >>>>>>>>>>> the but surely you can find some educated people who say otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is weak in the reason for denial though ? multinational massive >>>>>>>>>>> corporations are not funding the denial to offer short term benefits for >>>>>>>>>>> the very rich. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can deny the science all you want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What ***the*** science? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is weasely vague and scientifically illiterate to refer to **the** >>>>>>>>>> science that can't make valid predictions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can worship the rich all day. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't understand the motivation of your opponents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will stick to the evidence and go with the science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What "evidence?" How many "tipping points" have come and gone without >>>>>>>>>> the catastrophe predicted by salivating alarmists? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >>>>>>>>>> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >>>>>>>>>> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >>>>>>>>>> hope to kill." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By the science I mean, of course, the relevant climate science. You reject >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I reject the alarmist bullshit that the sky is falling and we're all >>>>>>>> gonna die because of ACO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference, or do you think "climate science" >>>>>>>> and the greenie religion are joined at the hip? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I accept it as what it is ? the best data we currently have and quite >>>>>>>>> reliable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... after it was "adjusted" by the Ministry of Truth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I also accept germ theory and other areas of science, too. How far do you >>>>>>>>> extend your irrational rejection? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Irrational how? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How rational is it to believe in the *next* tipping point predicted by >>>>>>>> climastrologists when they were wrong every time before? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Prophets/How.To.ID.False.Prophet.html> >>>>>>>> "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow >>>>>>>> not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not >>>>>>>> spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not >>>>>>>> be afraid of him" >>>>>>>> (Deuteronomy 18:22). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You reject science and point to religion to try to defend your active >>>>>>> ignorance. Got it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I posted guidance on how to spot a false prophet. >>>>>> >>>>>> What excuse to you offer for the numerous failed predictions of your >>>>>> ***the*** science and its doomsaying "consensus?" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I talk about science >>>> >>>> Where? >>>> >>>>> and you deny it and talk about religious things. Sure. >>>> >>>> I talked about valid predictions. >>>> >>>> Climastrologists are not good at making valid predictions. >>>> >>>>> That was pretty much my point. >>>>> >>>>> So what other areas of science do you reject? >>>> >>>> Greenies are confused by the "whooosh" sound they so often hear. >>>> >>> >>> When I speak of man-made global climate change I am speaking of science, >>> just as I am when I speak of germ theory. Of course. This is beyond >>> obvious. >> >> ... all the way to ludicrous. >> >> Germ theory is much more demonstrable than climastrology's claim that >> the sky is falling and we're all gonna die ... because ACO2. >> >>> And you failed to answer the question as to the other areas of science >>> you reject. Will you answer now? >> >> Your question has an invalid premise. >> >> You made yet another bad assumption, like the aforementioned >> misunderstanding of your opponents' motivation. >> >> 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to >> do nothing' >> >> As previously quoted: >> >> "The warmistas are not just wrong. They are festeringly evil. >> They are giggling malevolent monsters, perching and waiting >> to feast on the bodies of the people, by the billion, they >> hope to kill." >> >> > > You reject climate science but will not say what other areas of science you > reject. Got it. Well, maybe you can answer specifics: > > Do you accept gender is not as binary as many push? > > Do you think vaccinations cause autism? > > Do you accept evolution and reject intelligent design? > > Do you think GMOs are dangerous? > > Do you back ketosis diets? > > Do you accept homeopathy? > > I am happy to answer all of those. > > Wally ran. Not at all surprised.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-28 11:58 -0500
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 10:06 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-28 10:11 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 12:15 -0500
Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 14:34 -0800
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 15:47 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 17:53 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 15:57 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:09 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:10 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:18 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:38 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:25 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:36 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 18:08 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:18 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:20 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:34 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:36 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 18:40 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:54 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:58 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 16:59 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:00 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:20 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:29 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:33 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:40 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:08 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:23 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:00 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:05 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:12 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 21:23 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:27 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:06 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:16 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 19:34 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:39 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:04 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:12 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 20:17 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:13 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-28 21:19 -0500
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:35 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 16:54 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:05 -0700
Re: Apocalypse Cults are popular for a reason, people _ needed it. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-29 12:36 -0500
Snit's apocalypse cult. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 15:58 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:00 -0700
The REAL climate denier. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:16 -0800
Re: The REAL climate denier. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:18 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:22 -0800
Science FICTION ( fake news ). Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:34 -0800
Re: Science FICTION ( fake news ). Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:39 -0700
Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-12-28 16:53 -0800
Re: Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:55 -0700
Re: Snit needs his apocalypse cult, Kool-Aid and all. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 17:06 -0800
Re: Science FICTION ( fake news ). Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:28 -0700
Re: The REAL climate denier. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:51 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 20:49 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 19:02 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 22:18 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 20:37 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-28 23:19 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 21:25 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-29 21:12 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-29 19:33 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-29 21:37 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-29 19:52 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 10:26 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 16:08 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 13:39 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 20:52 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 16:02 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 21:50 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 18:44 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 16:49 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-30 20:18 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 00:34 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 06:23 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 02:24 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 05:51 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:01 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 13:32 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 18:41 +0000
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 13:47 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 11:53 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-12-31 15:38 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-31 12:46 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 13:48 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 13:56 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:00 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:16 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:20 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:21 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:23 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:27 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:35 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 14:49 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 14:53 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:14 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:32 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 15:36 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 15:39 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:12 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:26 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:30 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:38 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 16:47 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-31 16:58 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-30 19:20 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 05:46 -0500
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. "Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn>" <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-31 11:39 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-31 06:48 -0600
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:28 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:32 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:40 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:44 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:46 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-12-28 16:33 -0800
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 17:42 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Solastalgia Is The Specific Grief And Anxiety Caused By Climate Change "Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn>" <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-28 11:29 -0800
csiph-web