Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #682310 > unrolled thread

The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-25 05:46 -0400
    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-25 09:07 -0500
      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-25 14:38 -0400
        Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-25 16:27 -0500
          Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-25 17:40 -0400
    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-25 14:33 -0400
      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-25 21:42 +0000
        Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 01:57 -0400
          Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-26 09:19 -0500
            Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-26 10:59 -0400
              Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 11:15 -0400
                Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-26 12:23 -0400
                  Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 13:36 -0400
                    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-04-26 10:43 -0700
                    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-04-26 13:50 -0400
                      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 15:14 -0400
                  Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-26 19:10 -0400
                    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-04-26 17:19 -0700
                    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 21:14 -0400
            Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-26 11:10 -0400
      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-04-26 11:11 -0400
        Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-04-26 12:27 -0400
    Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:39 -0700
      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-25 18:25 -0700
      Re: The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-04-25 18:29 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#682310 — The year is 2050, and as climate change takes hold the bees will be the first to fall

An inconspicuous corner of East Anglia is well and truly alive. 
Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a 
handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate 
ecosystems are facing an existential threat from climate change:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-norfolk-species-conservation

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#682315

On 4/25/2018 4:46 AM, kensi wrote:
> An inconspicuous corner of East London is well and truly alive.
> Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a
> handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate
> ecosystems are facing an existential kisses from climate change:
> 



this one is better, more relivent;

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-handheld-fingerprint-scanner-database-biometric-security

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

#682347

On 4/25/2018 10:07 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 4:46 AM, kensi wrote:
>> An inconspicuous corner of East London is well and truly alive.
>> Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a
>> handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate
>> ecosystems are facing an existential kisses from climate change:
>>
> 
> 
> 
> this one is better, more relivent;
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-handheld-fingerprint-scanner-database-biometric-security
> 
Scratch a "climate change" science denier and find a socialist who loves 
a police state. Yoo Kay is well on the way to recording fingerprints at 
birth and giving you your citizen ID number so that you can be watched 
your whole life for "anti-government" political activities and stopped 
if necessary. It's just common sense.

I'm sure "kensi"-Nads love the second one better.

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

#682367

On 4/25/2018 1:38 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 10:07 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 4:46 AM, kensi wrote:
>>> An inconspicuous corner of East London is well and truly alive.
>>> Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a
>>> handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate
>>> ecosystems are facing an existential kisses from climate change:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> this one is better, more relivent;
>>
>> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-handheld-fingerprint-scanner-database-biometric-security
>>
>>
> Scratch a "climate change" science denier and find a socialist who loves
> a police state. Yoo Kay is well on the way to recording fingerprints at
> birth and giving you your citizen ID number so that you can be watched
> your whole life for "anti-government" political activities and stopped
> if necessary. It's just common sense.
> 
> I'm sure "kensi"-Nads love the second one better.


Are the Chinese bar coding or chipping the babies, or both ?  I am sure
they are taking DNA from them.

seems like a remote reader would be most efficient, bar coding across
forehead ?   Or could use alpha numeric, instead of old binary barcode,
or use the QR code on forehead or neck, and a free Facebook account.

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

#682372

On 4/25/2018 5:27 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 1:38 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 10:07 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2018 4:46 AM, kensi wrote:
>>>> An inconspicuous corner of East London is well and truly alive.
>>>> Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a
>>>> handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate
>>>> ecosystems are facing an existential kisses from climate change:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> this one is better, more relivent;
>>>
>>> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-police-handheld-fingerprint-scanner-database-biometric-security
>>>
>>>
>> Scratch a "climate change" science denier and find a socialist who loves
>> a police state. Yoo Kay is well on the way to recording fingerprints at
>> birth and giving you your citizen ID number so that you can be watched
>> your whole life for "anti-government" political activities and stopped
>> if necessary. It's just common sense.
>>
>> I'm sure "kensi"-Nads love the second one better.
> 
> 
> Are the Chinese bar coding or chipping the babies, or both ?  I am sure
> they are taking DNA from them.
> 
> seems like a remote reader would be most efficient, bar coding across
> forehead ?   Or could use alpha numeric, instead of old binary barcode,
> or use the QR code on forehead or neck, and a free Facebook account.
> 
Even better a free Google and Snopes account in case you have any doubts 
as to if your opinions are consistent with "official" line or not.

Forehead QR? You know I always wondered why Libs at their various 
"fairs" and things always set up a "face painting" booth for kids.
Coincidence? I think not. Training to teach children how cool a QR on 
your face can be.

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

#682346

On 4/25/2018 5:46 AM, kensi wrote:
> An inconspicuous corner of East Anglia is well and truly alive. 
> Norfolk's patchwork of fields, fens and scraggy marshes is home to a 
> handful of species seldom found elsewhere in the UK, but these delicate 
> ecosystems are facing an existential threat from climate change:
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate-change-norfolk-species-conservation
> 

Oh look Muffy! More pot boiling propaganda from a Wired staff writer.
Keep repeating the dogma and eventually it becomes true!

So here is Matt Reynolds trying to be the "savior" of nature by 
generating "silent spring" 2018 all blamed on global warming although 
the headline calls it "climate change". Obviously Matt is far too expert 
a writer to actually know science. Geeks don't write at this level of 
imagery. The money quote is:

"[13 bees, 24 birds, 15 trees and 270 Moths] are unlikely to stick 
around if global temperature increases carry on as projected"

Note weasel words: "unlikely" "if" "as projected".

Oh wait. Global warming stopped "carrying on as projected"
20 years ago. It's what warming fraudsters call the "hiatus" to 
demonstrate their blind faith that one day warming will pick up again 
even though a hundred dire computer models are now all ridiculously wrong.

So are you scared? A good stiff "energy tax" will keep those birds and 
bees safe! Isn't that worth it? And will keep Wired on the good side of 
those in power (BBC and Yoo Kay government always promoting the climate 
fraud when they can) and Matt's Yoo Kay salary coming in.

If you can't trust a staff writer journalist, who can you trust?

If only "climate change would drive all lib socialists to Kalifornia 
where natural disasters can dump them into the sea and extinction.

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

#682373

Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:

> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.

Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, kook.

-- 
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

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

#682408

On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
> 
> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, kook.
> 
Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads, 
your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no 
redeeming qualities?)

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

#682417

On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>
>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, kook.
>>
> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
> redeeming qualities?)

come on Nads!

  show benj some real Physics !

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

#682425

On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, kook.
>>>
>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>> redeeming qualities?)
> 
> come on Nads!
> 
>    show benj some real Physics ! 

Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.  Wave 
function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.

-- 
Dinsdale

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

#682432

On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, 
>>>> melt!
>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>
>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, 
>>>> kook.
>>>>
>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>
>> come on Nads!
>>
>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
> 
> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.  Wave 
> function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.

Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll 
wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory.

PS. Odd will inform you that current fashion is not to use the older 
discredited term "wave function collapse" anymore. Get with current 
jargon, boy.

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

#682448

On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, 
>>>>> melt!
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, 
>>>>> kook.
>>>>>
>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>
>>> come on Nads!
>>>
>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>
>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.  
>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
> 
> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll 
> wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 

There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too 
stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.

-- 
Dinsdale

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

#682458

On 4/26/2018 12:23 PM, Dinsdale wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, 
>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, 
>>>>>> kook.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>
>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>
>>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>>
>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution. 
>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>
>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll 
>> wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 
> 
> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too 
> stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
> 
Lay off the stash, man. Your brain is fried. And you are drooling down 
your shirt. You wouldn't know an equation if it bit you on the ass, let 
alone any science. The more empty the barrel the bigger the noise.

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

#682461

x-no-archive: yes

On 4/26/2018 10:36 AM, benj wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 12:23 PM, Dinsdale wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, 
>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually 
>>>>>>> exclusive, kook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>>
>>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>>
>>>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>>>
>>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution. 
>>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>>
>>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
>>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
>>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. 
>>> I'll wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 
>>
>> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too 
>> stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
>>
> Lay off the stash, man. Your brain is fried. And you are drooling down 
> your shirt. You wouldn't know an equation if it bit you on the ass, let 
> alone any science. The more empty the barrel the bigger the noise.

The more smack the down.

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

#682464

On 4/26/2018 1:36 PM, benj wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 12:23 PM, Dinsdale wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, 
>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually 
>>>>>>> exclusive, kook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>>
>>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>>
>>>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>>>
>>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution. 
>>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>>
>>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
>>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
>>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. 
>>> I'll wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 
>>
>> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too 
>> stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
>>
> Lay off the stash, man. Your brain is fried. And you are drooling down 
> your shirt. You wouldn't know an equation if it bit you on the ass, let 
> alone any science. The more empty the barrel the bigger the noise.

You are a noisy bugger.  Is your paycheck linked to word count?

-- 
Grizzly H.

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

#682485

On 4/26/2018 1:50 PM, mixed nuts wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 1:36 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 12:23 PM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, 
>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt!
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know 
>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually 
>>>>>>>> exclusive, kook.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>>>>
>>>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution. 
>>>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
>>>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
>>>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. 
>>>> I'll wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 
>>>
>>> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and 
>>> too stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
>>>
>> Lay off the stash, man. Your brain is fried. And you are drooling down 
>> your shirt. You wouldn't know an equation if it bit you on the ass, 
>> let alone any science. The more empty the barrel the bigger the noise.
> 
> You are a noisy bugger.  Is your paycheck linked to word count?
> 
Looking in a mirror?

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

#682535

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:23:53 -0400, Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> wrote:
>On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, 
>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, 
>>>>>> kook.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>
>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>
>>>>    show benj some real Physics ! 
>>>
>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.  
>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>> 
>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no 
>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my 
>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll 
>> wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory. 
>
>There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too 
>stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.

Admission of being soundly defeated via resorting 
to an ad hominem noted!

SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm)

-- 

Yours Truly,
Gregory Hall

"Tsk, tsk. No one appreciates his brilliance, poor fellow. 
(There might be a message in that for him.)"--Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

http://apprhondaleahkirkfries.blogspot.com/2014/05/rhonda-leah-kirk-fries-interview.html

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

#682541

x-no-archive: Yes

On 4/26/2018 4:10 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:23:53 -0400, Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive,
>>>>>>> kook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>>
>>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>>
>>>>>     show benj some real Physics !
>>>>
>>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.
>>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>>
>>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no
>>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my
>>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll
>>> wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory.
>>
>> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too
>> stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
> 
> Admission of being soundly defeated via resorting
> to an ad hominem noted!
> 
> SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm)

Smackdown! by Sir Greg

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

#682546

On 4/26/2018 7:10 PM, Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:23:53 -0400, Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2018 11:15 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2018 10:59 AM, Dinsdale wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
>>>>>>> melt!
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive,
>>>>>>> kook.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>>>>>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>>>>>> redeeming qualities?)
>>>>>
>>>>> come on Nads!
>>>>>
>>>>>     show benj some real Physics !
>>>>
>>>> Benjie lost in Liouville space.  His Hamiltonian has no solution.
>>>> Wave function done collapsed.  Total dumbass.
>>>
>>> Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. And yours is worth no
>>> more than assholeyness. I make you the same offer as Nads. Go to my
>>> website and show that I am wrong about Faraday's law being bogus. I'll
>>> wait right here. Discussion of equations is mandatory.
>>
>> There are no equations to discuss.  You're simply full of shit and too
>> stupid to find your way out of the manure pile you were born in.
> 
> Admission of being soundly defeated via resorting
> to an ad hominem noted!
> 
> SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm)
> 
<SNORT>!

We all know that equations are as mysterious to libs as truth.

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

#682429

On 4/26/2018 10:19 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/26/2018 12:57 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 4/25/2018 5:42 PM, Nadegda wrote:
>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 14:33:56 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously Matt is far too expert a writer to actually know science.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur. Those two things are by no means mutually exclusive, kook.
>>>
>> Says the strategic writer who knows no science. (And big hint, Nads,
>> your writing is not all that good. How do you feel about having no
>> redeeming qualities?)
> 
> come on Nads!
> 
>    show benj some real Physics !
> 
I'll make it easy on you Nads, Go to one of my websites (hypersphere.us) 
and read the paper on Faraday's Law is bogus. We'll wait right here for 
you to come back to discuss the equations and where they are in error so 
you can prove that I am a know-nothing "kook" and that Faraday is in his 
heaven and all's right with the world.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web