Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #722281 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-05 17:22 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 22:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 16:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-05 23:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-05 21:15 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:29 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2019-01-06 10:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:35 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:52 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 12:00 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 10:04 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-05 23:22 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 02:09 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:26 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 05:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 06:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 17:57 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 11:16 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:25 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 11:30 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:27 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 13:39 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 13:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:40 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:43 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-06 18:28 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:36 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:03 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 23:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:13 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:20 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:07 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:41 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:46 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:22 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:41 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:45 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2019-01-07 17:58 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:17 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2019-01-07 15:22 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:14 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2019-01-07 19:10 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 16:25 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:44 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:54 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:49 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 08:15 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:29 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-07 20:32 -0600
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-08 09:50 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:55 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:21 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:26 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 01:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:23 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 14:42 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:53 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:57 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:03 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 16:06 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:24 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:28 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:31 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-07 00:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:48 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2019-01-09 06:38 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2019-01-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 20:52 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:08 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:11 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 14:12 -0700
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-07 04:47 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2019-01-06 21:32 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-06 13:03 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:49 -0500
Kensi's religion isn't that large. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-01-05 22:54 -0800
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:07 +0000
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:04 -0500
Re: Climate Change and the Ocean: A Stark Message from the IPCC kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2019-01-08 10:00 -0500
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bgqagf-89m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722471 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>> >>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>> >>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>> >>> >>> There would still be six left. >> >> Not for very long. >> > > No. Always six. More childish nonsense. After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well past childbearing age. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ft3lFft2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722484 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>> >>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>> >>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There would still be six left. >>> >>> Not for very long. >>> >> >> No. Always six. > > More childish nonsense. > > After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well > past childbearing age. > Then how do we maintain a population of six?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r02bgf-2vm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722487 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There would still be six left. >>>> >>>> Not for very long. >>>> >>> >>> No. Always six. >> >> More childish nonsense. >> >> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >> past childbearing age. >> > > Then how do we maintain a population of six? Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if there is no one around of childbearing age? Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9g8llF2oltU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722502 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>> >>>>> Not for very long. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. Always six. >>> >>> More childish nonsense. >>> >>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>> past childbearing age. >>> >> >> Then how do we maintain a population of six? > > Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if > there is no one around of childbearing age? With the six people. > > Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? > Interesting how you still refer to Mommies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tejcgf-irr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722505 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. Always six. >>>> >>>> More childish nonsense. >>>> >>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>> past childbearing age. >>>> >>> >>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >> >> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >> there is no one around of childbearing age? > > With the six people. What six people would that be? >> >> Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? >> > > Interesting how you still refer to Mommies. I have to dumb everything down for you... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9hor5Fd7vvU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722530 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>> >>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>> >>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >> >> With the six people. > > What six people would that be? The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? Zombies? > >>> >>> Oh wait, did your mommy ever tell you where babies come from? >>> >> >> Interesting how you still refer to Mommies. > > I have to dumb everything down for you... > Your actions speak of you, not me. Yet another lesson for you. Juniper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m3qcgf-ufs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722535 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>> >>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>> >>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>> >>> With the six people. >> >> What six people would that be? > > The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? > Zombies? And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? <snip babbling twaddle> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bst3pc.6fd.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722548 |
On 2019-01-07 1:40 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>> >>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>> >>>> With the six people. >>> >>> What six people would that be? >> >> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >> Zombies? > > And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it > will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? > > <snip babbling twaddle> > i'm not gone so you lied
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369db2dd68c23bff8ae@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722550 |
In article <bst3pc.6fd.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-07 1:40 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>> >>>>> With the six people. >>>> >>>> What six people would that be? >>> >>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>> Zombies? >> >> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >> >> <snip babbling twaddle> >> >i'm not gone so you lied something tells me there is a jimp in this story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9ht1rFe3rkU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722548 |
On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not for very long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Always six.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More childish nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well
>>>>>>> past childbearing age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if
>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age?
>>>>
>>>> With the six people.
>>>
>>> What six people would that be?
>>
>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people?
>> Zombies?
>
> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it
> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone?
>
> <snip babbling twaddle>
>
You did not answer my questions:
jimp:
-----
What six people would that be?
-----
Snit:
-----
The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of?
Dead people? Zombies?
-----
That was not rhetorical. Who were you thinking of?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gj0dgf-o2t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #722554 |
In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>> >>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>> >>>>> With the six people. >>>> >>>> What six people would that be? >>> >>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>> Zombies? >> >> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >> >> <snip babbling twaddle> >> > > You did not answer my questions: Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bstams.pua.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722588 |
On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would be 100, well >>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than zero if >>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>> >>>>>> With the six people. >>>>> >>>>> What six people would that be? >>>> >>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead people? >>>> Zombies? >>> >>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you think it >>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>> >>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>> >> >> You did not answer my questions: > > Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. > yet you replied
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i4btFfm05U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722590 |
On 1/7/19 3:51 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would >>>>>>>>>> be 100, well >>>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than >>>>>>>> zero if >>>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With the six people. >>>>>> >>>>>> What six people would that be? >>>>> >>>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead >>>>> people? >>>>> Zombies? >>>> >>>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you >>>> think it >>>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>>> >>>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>>> >>> >>> You did not answer my questions: >> >> Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. >> > yet you replied His reply is he cannot answer the questions. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bstbnn.1qb.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722595 |
On 2019-01-07 4:06 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 1/7/19 3:51 PM, % wrote: >> On 2019-01-07 3:31 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/19 1:40 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 6:04 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 5:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:55 PM, % wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop having babies works too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years then humanities problems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would soon end. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we did that for 100 years there would be no humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There would still be six left. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not for very long. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No. Always six. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> More childish nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> After 100 years of no babies, the youngest people left would >>>>>>>>>>> be 100, well >>>>>>>>>>> past childbearing age. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then how do we maintain a population of six? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good question, how would you maintain a population greater than >>>>>>>>> zero if >>>>>>>>> there is no one around of childbearing age? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the six people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What six people would that be? >>>>>> >>>>>> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? Dead >>>>>> people? >>>>>> Zombies? >>>>> >>>>> And at a minimum age of 100 by your definition, how long do you >>>>> think it >>>>> will take until none of them are alive and all of humanity is gone? >>>>> >>>>> <snip babbling twaddle> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You did not answer my questions: >>> >>> Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. >>> >> yet you replied > > His reply is he cannot answer the questions. > you've really out smarted yourself this time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i4l1Ffm05U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #722588 |
On 1/7/19 3:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: ... >> You did not answer my questions: >> >> jimp: >> ----- >> What six people would that be? >> ----- >> >> Snit: >> ----- >> The six who are still alive. Who else were you thinking of? >> Dead people? Zombies? >> ----- >> >> That was not rhetorical. Who were you thinking of? > > Your puerile questions are not worthy of a response. Amazing how you cannot admit you do not know. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqkef.2e9.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722399 |
On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> >> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >> you take it to an extreme). > > What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? > the world will get over run with banana eating jimpanzees
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c33e54238a5cb896@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722413 |
In article <bsqkef.2e9.19.1@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 2:36 p.m., jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >>> you take it to an extreme). >> >> What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? >> >the world will get over run with banana eating jimpanzees LO to the FKing L
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 15:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q12vtt$1kj0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #722399 |
On 1/6/2019 4:36 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/19 1:57 PM, Skeeter wrote: > > <snip> > >>> Less people, less problem. control the population. >>> >> >> Certainly a good thing to do... but would not stop the problem (unless >> you take it to an extreme). > > What actions do you propose to accomplish this goal of eliminating humans? > Hey that's a simple answer, Jimp. History of the 20th century shows that just give leftists real power and pretty soon they are solving the overpopulation problem 100 million people at a time. Simple!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #722373 |
On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: > In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, > usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >> >> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>> >>> Puerile babble. >> >> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >> >> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >> >> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >> 800,000 years". >> >> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >> global warming between 1951-2010. >> >> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >> >> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >> >> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >> >> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >> >> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >> >> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >> defend. >> >> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! > > Less people, less problem. control the population. > what's a jimp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.369c22e0c92420a5891@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #722377 |
In article <bsqfvh.9mj.19.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >On 2019-01-06 1:57 p.m., Skeeter wrote: >> In article <g9f7c9Fqh34U2@mid.individual.net>, >> usenet@gallopinginsanity.com says... >>> >>> On 1/6/19 1:27 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> You are very confused and do not even know Republicans tend to deny climate >>>>> science, and you confuse science and religion. Fair enough. >>>> >>>> Puerile babble. >>> >>> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a >>> formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions: >>> >>> ? "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, >>> many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia". >>> >>> ? "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous >>> oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last >>> 800,000 years". >>> >>> ? Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely >>> (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of >>> global warming between 1951-2010. >>> >>> ? "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of >>> severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts" >>> >>> ? "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing >>> vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability" >>> >>> ? "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by >>> limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" >>> >>> ? Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest >>> an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, >>> relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to >>> 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty). >>> >>> ? The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not >>> consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative >>> to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements >>> are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a >>> "likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in >>> 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels. >>> >>> You confused accepting these very well supported conclusions with a >>> religion. It was an absurd thing for you to claim... and one you cannot >>> defend. >>> >>> Now we are at the insult phase of your trolling. Go! >> >> Less people, less problem. control the population. >> >what's a jimp Jump In My Pocket?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web