Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Why the science of clouds is still cloudy
Date	2016-03-05 19:11 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<9jnrqc-7gk.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <5n0qqc-tqe.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <nbdogr$1tst$1@gioia.aioe.org> <83da0def-e2cc-4739-8bf3-4923780539ef@googlegroups.com> <nlcqqc-uuf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <f88cbe78-4b71-4922-aef0-215b3a9b3d0e@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:05:18 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 8:49:39 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
>> >> On 3/4/2016 9:34 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >> sounds like all he really has is a set of one liners he likes to use, 
>> >> about 7, and that is about it.
>> >> 
>> >> nothing else of any substance or value, nada, zip.
>> >> Except for those extreme self-wacko films on Youtube, demented! Worth 
>> >> showing at a frat party
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Do you think that if you had a substantive dispute with my thinking
>> > that you would be less obsessed with me.
>> 
>> It isn't obsession, it is that you are one hell of a comedy act.
> 
> I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you
> are right and so completely unable to say how or why.

Again, I'm laughing my ass off over your delusions and have given you
several references to show you are an uneducated kook.

Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick and follow
that with Foundations of College Chemistry by Murphy and Rousseau.

Do you have a job that would enable you to afford to buy books?


-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

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

csiph-web