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

Groups > alt.usenet.kooks > #652536

Re: Earth to Nutcase dude

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:32:20 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:bb70f90c-6b5e-492f-9283-cf7821c713a1@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again on Date: Mon, 14
> Mar 2016 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT):
>
> Awww, did I perturb you, Jim? You spent all night hunched over your
> keyboard, furiously thinking up backpedaling denials and pathetic
> attempts to divert attention away from the fact that you've spent the
> last quarter century proving you're a delusional moron, huh, Jim.
>
> If your kooky conspiracy theory reflected reality, James Bernard
> McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA,

have you checked out his gables on google yet?

> you'd be able to sleep soundly at night
> knowing you have a comprehensive and scientifically sound defense of
> it. That I've got you up in the wee hours bleating out your pathetic
> justifications for you inability to defend it is all the proof
> necessary that even *you* know your kooky conspiracy theory is
> indefensible.
>
> <snicker>
>
>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:18:05 PM UTC-7,
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>>> Believers believe.
>
>>> And that's *all* you have, James... belief. You're no better than the
>>> AGW crowd. Conversely, I have more than two and half centuries of
>>> rigorous scientific inquiry backing me up. You lose. Again.
>
>> If that were true you would have no need to make that claim.
>
> That claim happens to be fact, James. But for a moronic idiotic kook
> like you who denies fact, I'm sure you find it completely normal to
> deny things which were known before there was even a comprehensive
> explanation of electricity.
>
> You're a throwback to the age of mysticism and alchemy... your kooky
> conspiracy theory is no better than AGW, it's merely a fairy tale, a
> scientific impossibility, as I have amply proven using that long-known
> scientific fact, James.
>
>> You also would have no need for the ad hominen and the
>> gratuitous strawman tactics.  IOW, your desperation tell
>> a story that is different from the one that is coming
>> out of your mouth.
>
> Awww, look at the kook backpedal and attempt to divert the topic to
> anything other than the fact that he has absolutely no defense of his
> kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> It really bothers you that I'm keeping you on point, doesn't it, Jim?
> Because you know you cannot defend your kooky conspiracy theory.
>
> Here, Jim... take another crack at refuting scientific reality... or
> run away and prove yet again that you're merely a delusional retard
> who cannot even back up your own blather...
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Still demonstrating your inability to grasp how water can be gaseous
> phase below its boiling point, James? It's already been fully
> explained to you, and in the process, your kooky conspiracy theory has
> been utterly demolished.
>
> You postulate the following:
>
> 1) There is a "plasma not-a-plasma" that exists in the troposphere,
> which you have admitted is merely a hypothetical construct so you can
> continue to blather on about your kooky discredited conspiracy theory.
>
> 2) This magical "plasma not-a-plasma" is plasmized by an energy source
> that is somehow magically plasmizing water in the troposphere without
> dissociating it, given that the dissociation energy and nuclear
> binding energy of water are identical at 940.8 kJ/mol, and thus water
> will dissociate rather than plasmize, unless hit with an extremely
> energetic laser.
>
> 3) That your kooky energy source is somehow plasmizing only
> atmospheric water while not plasmizing or dissociating Earth-bound
> water, and is not killing off all life on the planet. Given that the
> *minimum* energy necessary to even *begin* to plasmize water would be
> equivalent to photons at a *maximum* wavelength of 103.32 nm, just
> 3.32 nm away from the x-ray range, I'm sure even you can see the
> problem inherent in your contention, James.
>
> 4) That this magical energy source exists in the troposphere. Except
> it cannot exist in the troposphere. Photons of shorter wavelength than
> ~121 nm are absorbed far above the troposphere due to their ability to
> ionize air, thus they are not present in the troposphere, where the
> overwhelming majority of all water is.
>
> 5) That warm air is heavier than cooler air... tell me, Jim... which
> direction does air flow from a flame? Oh, that's right, upward. Why?
> Because warm air is lighter and less dense than cooler air and thus
> convects upward.
>
> 6) That air with gaseous phase water in it is heavier than dry air,
> except you forget that science has long known about molar mass and
> molar volume...
>
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Air temperature is a much greater determiner of air density than
> humidity.
>
> The molar mass of water is 18.02 g/mol, as calculated from the sum of
> the atomic masses of its constituent atoms.
>
> The average molar mass of air (approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen,
> 1% other gases) is 28.57 g/mol at STP.
>
> Thus using Avogadro's Law and the Ideal Gas Law, water in its gaseous
> phase and air have a molar volume of 22.414 L/mol at STP. IOW, a molar
> mass of air and a molar mass of water in its gaseous phase occupy the
> same volume of 22.414 liters at STP.
>
> The density of water in its gaseous phase at STP is 0.804 g/L, whereas
> the density of dry air is 1.27 g/L at STP.
>
> Therefore that 22.414 liters molar volume would weigh:
> 18.02 grams for water in its gaseous phase
> 28.57 g for dry air
>
> Therefore, water in its gaseous phase is lighter than air. Therefore
> air containing water in its gaseous phase is lighter than dry air.
>
> Therefore, drier air *must* sink through air laden with water in its
> gaseous phase, because it is less buoyant.
>
> Except that's not all, Jim. Because air becomes denser as the altitude
> decreases.
>
> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature and gaseous water
> partial pressure will have the same density.
>
> At any given altitude, air of lower temperature but similar gaseous
> water partial pressure will have higher density.
>
> At any given altitude, air of the same temperature but greater gaseous
> water partial pressure will have lower density.
>
> For air of the same temperature and gaseous water partial pressure,
> air at a higher altitude will have lower density.
>
> (1) For instance, at sea level, 20 C temperature, and 0% relative
> humidity, the air density is 1.204 kg/m^3.
>
> Keeping all other factors in (1) the same but increasing relative
> humidity to 100%, or elevation to 74 meters, or temperature to 22.4 C,
> the air density is 1.194 kg/m^3.
>
> Thus in order for the air at sea level to rise 74 meters due to
> increased buoyancy, it must have 100% more relative humidity than the
> air 74 meters above (IOW, the air at sea level must be at 100% RH, the
> air 74 meters above must be at 0% RH), given the same temperature; or
> the temperature of that sea level air must be at least 2.4 C greater
> than the air at 74 meters, given the same relative humidity.
>
> Given that temperature can change much more than 2.4 C, whereas
> relative humidity can only max out at 100%, one can see that
> temperature-induced convection is the predominant driver of weather
> systems, destroying yet another of your kooky contentions.
>
> IOW, in order for air to rise, it must overcome gravity, which
> requires energy (said energy in the form of temperature of the air
> itself decreasing air density or the latent heat of vaporization of
> monomer water in its gaseous phase replacing a certain percentage of
> higher molar weight air molecules and thus decreasing air density).
>
> It's not because of your blather that the air at a lower altitude is
> "heavier" due to "water droplets", Ko0okTard.
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
> And before you begin blathering on again about the Ideal Gas Law not
> applying to the atmosphere, let me remind you that I've done the
> calculations for the van der Waals equation, as well. It is in
> agreement with the Ideal Gas Law to a great degree of accuracy even
> with the molar volume I used. As air volume increases for the same
> relative humidity, air with gaseous phase water in it acts more and
> more like an ideal gas, Jim. Compare the Ideal Gas Law to the van der
> Waals Equation with all parameters the same except for volume, and
> increase the volume through several iterations, then plot the
> difference between the results of the Ideal Gas Law and the van der
> Waals equation... notice the converging trend?
>
> Do you think for an Earth-atmosphere-sized container, the air with
> gaseous phase water in it would be within a very small margin of error
> to an ideal gas, Jim? Sure it is. But that's something else you don't
> understand because you're a low-information uneducated oaf.
>
> 7) Your kooky contention that water polarity changes upon H bonding...
> which would also cause random changes in water's solvent properties,
> and we know water's solvent properties do not change randomly, Jim.
> You didn't know about the two spin isomers of water, which means there
> are two hybrids of water with different H bonding strengths:
>
> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156>
> They used x-ray spectroscopy to determine photon energy from electron
> orbital shell descent. You'll note the gaseous phase water molecule's
> photon spectra peaks at a much lower photon energy than ice. This is
> due to differences in hydrogen bonding strength between the two
> phases.
>
> <https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2304>
> You'll note the double peak of liquid water.
>
> Professor Anders Nilsson, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory:
> ====================================================
> Two peaks, what does that mean? Could it be two different types of
> water molecules then, in the liquid? And if you look at it, one of the
> peaks is very close to the gas phase and the other peak is closer to
> the ice. So it looks like water contains two types of molecules.
> ====================================================
>
> You betcha... para and ortho-form water.
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ortho_para_water.html>
> ====================================================
> Each hydrogen atom in water has a magnetic moment, which is associated
> with the proton's spin of 1/2. As is found in molecular hydrogen (H2),
> the protons (within the hydrogen atoms) in water (H2O) may possess
> parallel or antiparallel nuclear spin (see right). When the spins are
> parallel, there is a paramagnetic state called ortho-H2O with a
> magnetic moment = 1. This is the high spin (triplet) state with three
> symmetric spin states +1 , 0 , -1 (^^, ^v+^v, vv) where the three
> states have equal energy in a zero magnetic field. This spin state
> always possesses positive energy with a minimum energy level of 284.7
> J mol-1 (23.794352 cm-1) H216O, [607c], 284.4 J mol-1 (23.773510 cm-1)
> H217O [607a] or 284.2 J mol-1 (23.754902 cm-1) H218O [607a].
>
> When the spins are opposed there exists the nonmagnetic state called
> para-H2O with magnetic moment = 0 with just one antisymmetric spin
> state (^v-^v) and magnetic moment = 0. Some of the water molecules in
> this low spin (singlet) state will not be rotating even at room
> temperature.
>
> Para-H2O does not interact with an external magnetic field, but
> ortho-H2O does. Conversion between these isomers is symmetry forbidden
> for isolated water molecules and they act as different molecular
> species. They can change spin state on interaction with another
> particle, including other water molecules. The equilibrium ratio of
> these nuclear spin states in H2O is all para- at zero Kelvin, where
> the molecules have no rotational spin in their ground state, shifting
> to the most stable ratio [1694] of 3:1 ortho:para, in the relative
> amounts of the number of magnetic states, at less cold temperatures
> (>50 K, see left [2478]); the equilibrium taking months to establish
> itself in ice (or gas) and nearly an hour in ambient water [410]. It
> is now thought that the ratio lies far from equilibrium and much
> closer to 1:1 in liquid water due to hydrogen bond formation [2076].
> This means that liquid H2O effectively consists of a mixture of
> non-identical molecules and the properties of pure liquid ortho-H2O or
> para-H2O are unknown. The differences in the properties of these two
> forms of water are expected to be greater in an electric field [1186],
> which may be imposed externally, from surfaces or from water
> clustering itself. Many materials preferentially adsorb para-H2O due
> to its non-rotation ground state [410, 835].
>
> The apparent difference in energy between the two states is a
> significant 1-2 kJ mol-1, far greater than expected from spin-spin
> interactions (< μJ mol-1) [835]. It has been suggested that structural
> rearrangements may be induced by ortho-H2O : para-H2O conversion
> [1430], as it is possible that hydrogen bonds between para-H2O,
> possessing no ground state spin, are stronger and last longer than
> hydrogen bonds between ortho-H2O [1150]. It is thus possible that
> ortho-H2O and para-H2O form separate hydrogen bonded clusters [1150]
> with para-H2O being preferred in the low density tetrahedrally
> coordinated clusters and ortho-H2O being preferred in the high density
> clusters [2070], where their rotation is more easily accommodated.
> Picoliter samples of pure ortho-H2O and para-H2O may be separated in a
> strong dc electric field [2156].
> ====================================================
>
> The two spin isomers of water cause a different H bond strength when
> water molecules of like spin isomers engage in H bonding to form water
> clusters, Jim. Thus the weaker ortho-H2O hydrogen bond is more easily
> broken, so most of the gaseous phase water being evaporated should be
> ortho-H2O. You'll note above that ortho-H2O even in its liquid form is
> very close to the same properties as gaseous phase water under x-ray
> spectroscopy, the difference accountable by taking into consideration
> temperature and phase.
>
> Remember when I said the surface layer of water was more viscous than
> the bulk water? Yeah, that's because the ortho-H2O being evaporated
> removes heat from the water, which makes the para-H2O in the ~1.7 nm
> thick surface layer act nearly the same as ice.
>
> <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
> =====================================================
> Analysis of simple thermodynamics c shows the surface has considerable
> structuring, having identical density to that of bulk water at just
> under 4 °C. In addition, the surface water structuring varies less
> with temperature than the bulk. Refractive index study of the
> water-air surface reveals it to be about 1.7 nm thick at 22 °C and
> more dense than the bulk liquid (that is, it behaves like water at a
> lower temperature).
> =====================================================
>
> As for condensation? Well, it's been found that under circumstances in
> which relative humidity is less than ~25%, a four-molecule thick layer
> of ice forms on the condensation surface... so apparently what is
> happening is that the ortho-H2O being evaporated is colliding with
> other molecules in the air, changing their spin isomer and thus giving
> off energy, becoming para-H2O, and those are the ones preferentially
> condensing, forming that four-molecule thick layer of ice. You'll note
> above that para-H2O even in its liquid form is very close to the same
> properties as solid phase water (ice) under x-ray spectroscopy, the
> difference accountable by taking into consideration temperature and
> phase.
>
> For conditions of greater than ~25% relative humidity and thus greater
> water gaseous-phase partial pressure in the air, apparently the
> condensation process is fast enough to allow even ortho-H2O
> gaseous-phase water to condense, thus the four-molecule thick layer of
> ice is melted.
>
> So you see, James, it's not because of your kooky contention that the
> water molecule's polarity changes upon hydrogen bonding, it's because
> there are two spin-isomer hybrids of the water molecule with two
> different hydrogen bonding strengths.
>
> Yet again, your kooky conspiracy theory is ripped to shreds by
> scientific fact... made especially delicious because it was done
> utilizing a link *you* provided. LOL
>
> <http://phys.org/news/2014-09-para-ortho.html>
> ==============================================
> A hydrogen nucleus (proton) can adopt two different states, comparable
> to rotation clockwise and counterclockwise. In the case of water, the
> nuclear spins of the two — indistinguishable — protons can be  
> combined
> in four different ways: one antisymmetric and three symmetric
> wavefunctions. Water adopting the antisymmetric wavefunction is called
> para water, whereas water adopting one of the symmetric ones is called
> ortho water. Because switching from one state to the other is
> "forbidden" due to quantum-mechanical symmetry rules, the two spin
> isomers cannot interconvert without external influences such as
> collisions.
> ==============================================
>
> Were you not aware that hydrogen has two spin isomers, ortho- and
> para-, and thus water, comprised of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen
> atoms, also has two spin isomers?
>
> <https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f24e171918d462fac89b809dccaa7c3e>
> <http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/201434press.gif>
>
> In pure hydrogen, ortho-hydrogen is thermodynamically unstable even at
> low temperature and / or high pressure and it thus spontaneously
> converts to para-hydrogen upon molecular collision, which has
> implications for liquefied hydrogen storage, as energy is given off by
> this spin isomer conversion.
>
> In water, the oxygen atom slows the already slow conversion process to
> para-hydrogen by preserving spin state of the hydrogen atom via
> partially shielding the hydrogen atom from molecular collision which
> would cause spin isomer conversion.
>
> Now, let's you get to answering those questions you've been ducking,
> Jim...
>
> How are your kooky atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're
> plasma, Jim?
>
> How is your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" forming if the nuclear binding
> energy and dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the
> water is dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen, Jim?
>
> Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
> extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
> photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
> troposphere to form your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
>
> How is the energy to plasmize your kooky "plasma not-a-plasma" not
> dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
>
> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding, and in fact the two spin isomers of water molecules
> account for the different H bonding strengths which account for
> evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your kooky
> conspiracy theory is workable, Jim?
>
> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
> Your kooky conspiracy theory has been utterly destroyed, Jim. It does
> not and cannot reflect reality. Deal with that reality as you will,
> Jim.
>
> Most Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktards like you, when presented with
> the proof that they are delusional, tend to 'circle the wagons' to
> protect their delusions, driving themselves ever deeper into insanity.
> I note you are doing the same.
>
> I also note that, despite being driven *so* insane by their Usenet
> Lord and Master that some kooks forget their own name, they never
> forget mine... it haunts them for as long as they live.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly  
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

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

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

Back to alt.usenet.kooks | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:40 +0100
  Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 08:58 +0100
  Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:29 +0100
    Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 07:00 +0100
      Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 08:52 +0100
        Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:17 +0100
          Re: Earth to Nutcase dude binky feel good <julianfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 21:32 -0700
          Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 06:21 +0100
            Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 07:07 +0100
              Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 17:32 +0100
                Re: Earth to Nutcase dude "\"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> - 2016-03-14 12:44 -0400
                Re: Earth to Nutcase dude Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-15 05:54 +0100

csiph-web