Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #721753
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | talk.politics.guns, comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.checkmate |
| Subject | Re: Snit's apocalypse cult. |
| Date | 2018-12-31 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g8v666FakddU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <sn1j2elje27mlrtnm7due53tsnshkt74ni@4ax.com> <g8tg4vFtm7jU9@mid.individual.net> <laaj2epu85u6ib5nh6tq1kisuujdhmmnca@4ax.com> <g8tqu8F1fmbU1@mid.individual.net> <g8upasF7rmpU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > 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. > > Wally continues to run and asks me about alleged failed predictions he does not even cite. He merely wants attention. Got it.
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