Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2)

Newsgroups	alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics
Subject	Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2)
References	(3 earlier) <su2dnbXIAZcF6ELInZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> <e01ed885a055f4f6646c537f0f965630@dizum.com> <op.x33aoip9tm21m2@benson.localhost> <b7a9f3535d1c30e784011c6fd34d908b@dizum.com>
Date	2015-08-31 03:16 -0400
From	"\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1>
Organization	AUKTard Polizia
Message-ID	<op.x3705jndtm21m2@benson.localhost> (permalink)

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:42:14 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of
> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as
> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x33aoip9tm21m2@benson.localhost> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:31:37 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
>> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>>
>>> Robert M. Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider) of
>>> 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as
>>> root@127.0.0.1, in <news:op.x31r7kn2tm21m2@benson.localhost> did
>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:39:11 -0400, Rocky (aka
>>>> Michael S. Guthrie of 6913 Maynard Road, Summerfield, NC)
>>>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> ROT<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
>>>> why do i also have the feeling that you are one of these people who
>>>> believe that the "government can't do anything right", except when  
>>>> some
>>>> hyper-complex conspiracy is involved.
>>>>
>>>> that would be as k0oky as denying what a majority of climate  
>>>> scientists
>>>> have to say about climate change.
>
>>> Or as kooky as believing a majority of scientists agree about
>>> something which they clearly don't:
>>>
>>> Klimate Katastrophe Kook K'lame #4: 97% of climate experts agree
>>> humans are causing global warming
>>>
>>> SPNAK! #4
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> The "97% of climate scientists agree" is an outright lie:
>>> Message-ID: <c407c7d08fb6911ec5f4f90971e41c78@dizum.com>
>>> =========================================================
>>> The LibTard environmental whackadoodles keep bleating about "97%
>>> of climate scientists agree that global warming is human
>>> caused!".
>>>
>>> Where did this 97% figure come from?
>>>
>>> When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as
>>> convincing as a Chicago election. The most prominent form of it
>>> comes from a professor in Australia named John Cook at the
>>> University of Queensland.
>>>
>>> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts
>>> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate
>>> science articles.
>>>
>>> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his
>>> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no
>>> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed
>>> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were
>>> uncertain."
>>>
>>> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on
>>> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract
>>> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on
>>> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus
>>> position that humans are causing the warming."
>>>
>>> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482
>>> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that
>>> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all
>>> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research
>>> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed)
>>> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC
>>> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on.
>>>
>>> But then, LibTard environmental whackadoodles are gullible and
>>> stupid... they can't pull their heads out of liberalism's ass
>>> long enough to do their own research, and even if they could,
>>> that hard math eludes them.
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> Doh! Stoooopid libtard *still* can't figure out that hard math. LOL
>
>> "stooopid libtard" can prove that james cook would tell you to take your
>> global cooling myth and stuff it:
>
> You stayed up all night raping Google again, didn't you, DildoRider?
> You poor pathetic bastard. Now you're going to get bootfucked so hard
> you won't ever be the same again. LOL
>
>> http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/
>>
>> "With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of
>> Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics, Cook
>> says his interest in climate science was sparked when he was given a  
>> copy
>> of a speech by Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, most known to
>> climate professionals for having attached the â€œgreatest hoax known to  
>> manâ€
>> tag to anthropogenic climate change."
>
> What's any of the above got to do with the falsified "97%" k'lame you
> libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are making, DildoRider? Except that
> John Cook himself admits he's not a climate scientist. And the fact
> that his "study" is utter and complete fraudulent and fictional
> bullshit. LOL
>
> <http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html>
>
>> looks like you won't be able to use your "james
>
> You mean John? LOL
>
> Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL
>
>> cook" mythology anymore to try to back your k'lames that are
>> unfounded and unpopular with climate scientists.  D'OH!!!
>
> Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL
>
>>  from james
>
> You mean John? LOL
>
> Put down the crack pipe, Crackie McCrackHead. LOL
>
>> cook's own website (LOL!):
>>
>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_James_Inhofe.htm
>>
>> Climate Myth:	
>> "this 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming],
>> that doesn't mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on
>> the floor...and these were top people."
>> 14 March 2012 (Source)
>>
>> What the Science Says:
>> 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
>
> The actual numbers show the libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook
> "consensus" is collapsing. LOL
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-LVhNM5fA>
> 33 of the 50 most-cited papers on climate change were omitted in the
> Cook et. al. "study". 8,000 papers that couldn't be fraudulently
> misclassified were ignored, and many other papers by the following
> scientists wrongly categorized by Cook et. al. (2013) in a classic
> case of cherry-picking.
>
> Here are some of the scientist's responses:
>
> Prof. Craig D. Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my
> paper."
>
> Dr. Nicola Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman
> argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory..."
>
> Professor Nir J. Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate
> representation."
>
> Dr. Alain Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper... as
> "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize", nothing
> could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I
> believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification
> that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the
> data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers."
>
> Professor Nils-Axel Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly
> misleading. My papers are strongly against AGW."
>
> Professor Willie Soon: "This rating of 'no position on AGW by CO2' is
> nowhere accurate nor correct."
>
> Professor Richard Tol: "7 out of 10 assessed papers were wrongly
> classified, another 112 were completely omitted! Of these, 111 (99%)
> were neutral. I think (their) data are a load of crap. I think (their)
> sampling strategy is a load of nonsense."
>
> DOUBLE D'OH!!!
>
>> DOUBLE D'OH!!!
>
> Double D'OH!!! on the fact that his own report says:
> ==================================================
> What Cook's study purported to do was to review the abstracts
> (not the entire papers, just the abstracts) of 11,000 climate
> science articles.
>
> But when you read the first paragraph of Cook's abstract for his
> study, it says, "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no
> position on anthropogenic global warming, 32.6% endorsed
> anthropogenic global warming, 0.7% rejected it, and 0.3% were
> uncertain."
>
> That means only 1/3 of those papers had an opinion on
> human-caused global warming. The next sentence in Cook's abstract
> for his study says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on
> human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorsed the consensus
> position that humans are causing the warming."
>
> Of course, Cook exposes his bias in the sentence immediately above by
> k'laming there *is* a consensus, despite his own numbers proving there
> is not... he then went on to misclassify papers and omit those he
> couldn't misclassify in order to manufacture his k'lamed "consent".
>
> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482
> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that
> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all
> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research
> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed)
> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC
> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on.
> ==================================================
>
> Still having trouble grasping that basic math, DildoRider? Perhaps the
> libtard Cook is having trouble understanding the basic math, as well.
> Or perhaps he's a lying libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook like you. LOL
>
>> now, how's about you and your dreamt-up k0okyKonservative wignut klimate
>> konspiracy theories frig right off?
>
> POINT 1:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Oh, what will you do when your beloved skepticalscience.com agrees
> with me, DildoRider? LOL
>
> <https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm>
> ==================================================
> 97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global
> warming agree global warming is happening... and we are the cause."
>
> "Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers
> (out of 12,000 abstracts) expressed a position on the cause of global
> warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming."
> ==================================================
>
> 4000 / 12000 = 33.3% of all papers stated a position.
>
> See the distinction there, DildoRider? 97% of *papers* *stating* *a*
> *position*, NOT 97% of climate scientists... your fallacy of
> equivocation is cute but utter bullshit. From Cook's own study above,
> only 32.6% of all papers stated a position.... and that was *with*
> Cook et. al. misclassifying a bunch of them, and omitting that which
> he knew he couldn't get away with misclassifying. Which corroborates
> my math above:
>
> 11000 * .326 = 3586 * .971 = 3482
> (3482 / 11000) * 100 = 31.65% of climate scientists agree that
> global warming is human-caused. And those 31.65% aren't even all
> "climate scientists"... a good majority of them are research
> assistants and college students who write the (non-peer reviewed)
> papers that the lead researchers (mainly associated with the IPCC
> and other politicized "scientific" entities) put their names on.
>
> And both the Cook study *and* the SkepticalScience.com follow-up
> collaboration with John Cook were debunked thoroughly:
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1>
> Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology,
> Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
>
> "In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â€“2030, 2013),
> seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that
> fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus.
> Their definition of climate â€˜misinformationâ€™ was contingent upon the
> post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by
> measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous
> consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al.
> (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied
> upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard
> definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is
> anthropogenic."
>
> D'OH! Did you get that, DildoRider? Cook et. al. lied, cherry-picked
> and outright falsified their data, same as all the other Klimate
> Katastrophe Kooks did when trying to sell their alarmist bullshit as
> steak. And they all got caught... ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0,
> remember? And now we have CartoonyGate by the failed cartoonist John
> Cook. LOL
>
> Lies, damned lies and statistics... and the libtard Klimate
> Katastrophe Kooks use all three. Too bad they're all too fucking
> stupid to get away with it. LOL
>
> SPNAK! on the math-challenged little emo scarecrow freak. LOL
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ***************************************************
> ***************************************************
> Are ya *feeling* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL
> ***************************************************
> ***************************************************
>
> POINT 2 - Another "97%" myth:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The 97% number was created by meticulously selecting certain surveys
> using murky terminology to formulate a specific narrative.
>
> For example, one of the main sources of the 97% myth is a 2009 article
> by a student/teacher combo at the University of Illinois by the name
> of Doran and Zimmerman.  The two of them conducted a two question
> online poll which concluded that 9 out of 10 scientists agreed
> temperatures were rising and mankind was the driving force.  The
> survey was very heavy on temperature changes but very light on how
> humans played a role which essentially only confirmed that many
> scientists believe the climate is changing, which isnâ€™t even remotely
> unusual.
>
> Another problem with this survey was that the â€œscientistsâ€ who were
> surveyed were scientists in the same way Bill Nye the Science guy is a
> scientist (heâ€™s not, his highest level of education is a bachelorâ€™s
> degree in engineering).  Strangely, only 79 of the 3100 responses to
> this poll were from people who considered themselves experts in
> climate science.  This survey was clearly not the landslide statement
> that climate change believers made it out to be.
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eost.v90.3/issuetoc
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> ***********************************************************
> ***********************************************************
> I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck yet, DildoRider? LOL
> ***********************************************************
> ***********************************************************
>
> POINT 3 - Another "97%" myth:
> Are you getting the feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks had a
> meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to convince
> gullible libtards that there was a consensus? LOL
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The 97 Percent Myth
> June 3, 2014
>
> Global warming advocates routinely toss out the statistic that 97
> percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made.
> Where did that figure come from? Joseph Bast, president of the
> Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for
> the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explain the history behind
> the misleading number.
>
> In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of
> scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous
> problem.
>
> In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science historian, examined 928
> abstracts of scientific journal articles, finding that three-quarters
> of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the observed
> warming of the last half-century.
>
> However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists --
> such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy -- who question the
> "consensus" view. Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine
> confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not
> proven in the studies themselves.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Bwahahaha! A science *historian*?! No formal climate science education
> there. Not a bit... and she's amply demonstrated herself to be one of
> the alarmism bleating Klimate Katastrophe Kooks. LOL
>
> ******************************************************************
> ******************************************************************
> I say, I say, are ya *_feeling_* the bootfuck YET, DildoRider? LOL
> ******************************************************************
> ******************************************************************
>
> POINT 4 - Another "97%" myth:
> Are you getting the *definite* feeling the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
> had a meeting and decided upon the 97% number as high enough to
> convince gullible libtards that there was a consensus, then kept
> bleating their wholly manufactured lie in hopes it'd finally be
> believed? LOL
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> A 2009 article by University of Illinois student Maggie Kendall
> Zimmerman and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran also made the 97
> percent claim.
>
> The authors made this conclusion after conducting a two-question
> online survey of 3,146 scientists, only 79 of which were experts in
> climate science and had published half of their recent peer-reviewed
> papers on climate change. It did not include the scientists most
> likely to understand the natural causes of climate change: solar
> scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists
> or astronomers. Moreover, the survey did not specify whether the human
> impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project -- a
> group of physicists and physical chemists in California -- has
> collected 31,487 signatures from American scientists agreeing that
> there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release
> of...carbon dioxide...or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in
> the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's
> atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
>
> Source: Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, "The Myth of the Climate Change
> '97%'" Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014.
>
> So I'll see your measly 4,000 Klimate Katastrophe Kook "zOMG! Glorbul
> Woarmings! DUUURRRHHHH!" papers, and raise you more than THIRTY ONE
> THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN scientists (and that's just in the
> US) who say "bullshit".
>
> http://www.petitionproject.org/
>
> In fact, I'll throw into the pot NASA, UAH, UK Met and RSS data
> proving the planet's been *cooling* for the whole 18 years you libtard
> Klimate Katastrophe Kooks have been screaming "zOMG! Gleurbil
> Woaermings! DUUURRRRHHH!". LOL
>
> ===============================================================
> <http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
> Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.
>
> Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
> *Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~18
> years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~18 years:
> <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>
>
> Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
> Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
> years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
> archived it):
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
> Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
> temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.
> ===============================================================
>
> And I'll even toss in the proof that the oceans aren't absorbing any
> heat:
> =================================================
> <http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/>
> <http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-stumped-deep-oceans-warmed-2005/>
> "When scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
> Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean
> temperature data from 2005 to 2013, they found that "the ocean
> abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably",
> the space agency announced in a press release on Monday.
> =================================================
>
> And the fact that TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) has been falling, which
> is the main causal factor for the planet cooling, lo these past 18
> years:
> =================================================
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
> Differences between ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are evident, but the
> most significant is the solar minimum-to-minimum trends during solar
> cycles 21-23. ACRIM established an increase of +0.037%/decade from
> 1980 to 2000 and a decrease thereafter.
>
> The implications of increasing TSI during the global warming of the
> last two decades of the 20th century are that solar forcing may be a
> significantly larger factor in climate change than represented in the
> CMIP5 general circulation climate models.[22]
> =================================================
>
> See the above, Ko0K? That means the total W/M^2 has been falling for
> the past decade and a half. And that your Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
> intentionally ignored TSI so they could instead place blame at the
> feet of CO2 and anthropogenicity to push their whackadoodle libtard
> Klimate Katastrophe Kook agenda. IOW, they fucking lied, and you're
> just stupid enough that you bought the lie. And now you're making a
> fool of yourself in defending your delusion.
>
> *********************************************************************
> *********************************************************************
> That's called "You've been bootfucked to hell and back, you gibbering
> retard". Now go clean yourself up, you pathetic putz. You're a fucking
> embarrassment.
> *********************************************************************
> *********************************************************************
>
> <snicker>
>

now, there's the gish gallop we know and love!

-- 
http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd


--

Thread

The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 10:08 -0500
  Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-20 19:57 +0200
    Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:09 -0500
      Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:10 +0200
        Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:24 -0500
          Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:53 +0200
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 17:01 -0500
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:58 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 08:15 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:23 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 16:47 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:45 -0700
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 08:10 +0200
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:27 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 17:38 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 16:49 +0000
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 17:51 -0400
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-22 23:29 +0000
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:28 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:16 +0000
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 09:11 +0100
                2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 05:51 -0500
                Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 12:15 +0100
                Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:26 -0500
                Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:38 -0500
                Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:40 -0500
                Re: 2 T-Annoy proves he is an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 17:45 +0100
                T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 11:59 -0500
                Re: T-Annoy proves he is still an asshole (was find your own evidence) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 18:19 +0100
                T-Annoy proves he is still a big asshole (was find your own evidence) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:45 -0500
                Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves  "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:29 -0500
                Re: Jim proves he can't see people impeach themselves je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-08-23 13:31 -0700
                Re: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:47 -0500
                Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit)) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 07:14 -0500
                Re: Caught Kent in a BIG LIE (was: 2 T-Annoy find your own evidence Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-23 15:00 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 06:46 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 12:50 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 21:07 +0200
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-22 15:11 -0400
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 22:57 +0200
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 21:17 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 14:42 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-22 22:58 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:43 +0200
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 00:16 +0200
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-22 06:05 +0200
          Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:12 -0500
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 01:16 -0500
    Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-20 17:35 -0500
      Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 05:37 +0200
        Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 08:41 -0500
          Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 06:55 -0700
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 07:40 -0700
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:34 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 14:45 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-21 16:52 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-21 22:53 +0000
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:42 -0400
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 09:20 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 09:53 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:16 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 11:13 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-22 18:02 +0100
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 17:12 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-21 21:36 -0700
          Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-21 20:17 +0200
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 20:59 -0500
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:07 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2015-08-23 09:07 +0100
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 06:08 +0200
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 21:22 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit Checkmate <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-08-22 21:31 -0700
                Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut:  (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 10:43 -0500
                Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 19:38 +0200
                Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 13:08 -0500
                Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-23 21:47 +0200
                Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut again: "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0700
                Re: Breaking news for the Friendly Neighborhood Nut:  (was: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 11:38 -0700
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-23 05:19 +0000
          Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 16:10 -0500
            Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-22 10:43 -0500
              Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 06:27 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-23 12:59 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-23 14:02 -0400
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-27 15:39 -0500
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:05 -0700
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-27 21:10 +0000
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-27 18:17 -0400
                Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-28 06:31 +0200
                Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-28 13:54 -0400
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 04:42 +0200
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:09 +0000
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-29 18:12 +0200
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:17 -0400
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-31 03:16 -0400
                Re: Proof that snickerTurds can't quite grok logic WAS: Re: The FBI's report about 9/11/01 proves the box cutter bullshit was just bullshit (MM is BS 2) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 17:17 +0200

csiph-web