"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> John,
>
>> Religion can be the
>> principal source of violence as in the Inquisition, but even that had undertones of
>> personal and political gain.
>>
>
> Religion itself is all about personal and political gain.
>

Kind of like "global climate change."

[George, of course]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> John Mazor wrote:
>
>> So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the
>> greenhouse gas CO2. From one of the websites you so blithely blew
>> off:
>>
>> "The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have
>> increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm)
>> to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34%
>> increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
>> highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the
>> burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in
>> a power plant generating electricity."
>
> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
> following point by point. :-)
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>

Why? can't do your own homework?

Bertirbie.e.

[Adrian McGillicutty]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> John,
>>
>>> Religion can be the
>>> principal source of violence as in the Inquisition, but even that
>>> had undertones of personal and political gain.
>>>
>>
>> Religion itself is all about personal and political gain.
>>
>
> Kind of like "global climate change."
>

Well, I'm sincere.

Btreib

[Grumman-581]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:11:53 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Well, it says volumes about you, that's for sure.

Actually, the first time I heard it was from a black guy, complaining
about other black guys... After that, everytime I saw a black guy with
a white girl at the mall or wherever, I tended to notice... It really
seemed that he was right... Of course there are exceptions to this...
Mainly the high paid sports figures and entertainers, but it seems that
they just use that as a measure of their success -- basically a trophy
white chick...

Oh well, no one ever accused me of being politically correct...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:11:53 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Well, it says volumes about you, that's for sure.
>
> Actually, the first time I heard it was from a black guy, complaining
> about other black guys... After that, everytime I saw a black guy with
> a white girl at the mall or wherever, I tended to notice... It really
> seemed that he was right... Of course there are exceptions to this...
> Mainly the high paid sports figures and entertainers, but it seems that
> they just use that as a measure of their success -- basically a trophy
> white chick...
>
> Oh well, no one ever accused me of being politically correct...
>

I'm sure. Or any other sort of correct, for that matter.


Bertie

[Grumman-581]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:54:45 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> I'm sure. Or any other sort of correct, for that matter.

I haven't been around r.a.p in awhile... I don't remember you from back
when I used to hang around here... Are you the new troll of the group? Or
are you a nym-shift of MXS to bypass my MXS-troll filter? From reading
the recent posts, it seems that you have the hots for Jay or something...
What's up? Did Jay **** in your Wheaties or something?

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:54:45 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> I'm sure. Or any other sort of correct, for that matter.
>
> I haven't been around r.a.p in awhile... I don't remember you from
> back when I used to hang around here... Are you the new troll of the
> group? Or are you a nym-shift of MXS to bypass my MXS-troll filter?
> From reading the recent posts, it seems that you have the hots for Jay
> or something... What's up? Did Jay **** in your Wheaties or
> something?
>

Nope, I just like tormenting idiots.

Call it a fault. Call it a gift. it is what it is.

Ennh.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I haven't been around r.a.p in awhile... I don't remember you from back
> when I used to hang around here... Are you the new troll of the group? Or
> are you a nym-shift of MXS to bypass my MXS-troll filter? From reading
> the recent posts, it seems that you have the hots for Jay or something...
> What's up? Did Jay **** in your Wheaties or something?

Dude! I was wondering where you've been. Glad to see you're back.

Bertie became my new rump ranger when I called him on his obsession over MX.
His pathological need to respond to every, single post MX makes with
brilliant comebacks like "****wit" has made him far more destructive to this
group than MX could ever be.

And now he apparently feels the need to do the same to me. It's funny,
really, in a pathetic sort of way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> The scientists are so convinced that they are right
> they refuse to look any alternate points of view.
>

That's utter BS - and you probably know it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Grumman-581]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:30:05 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:


> Based on my past experiences with this dip****, you're gonna have a LOT of
> idiocy to work with.
> He almost makes MX look sane.
>
> Almost

Coming from someone that hides behind a cowardly remailer, that really
means something... Not...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Grumman-581]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:18:59 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Dude! I was wondering where you've been. Glad to see you're back.

I got tired of the MXS bull****... It was easy enough to filter out his
idiocy, but all the replies to his idiotic posts just got boring after
awhile... I've probably been away since last February... I had kind of
hoped that the MXS crap would have disappeared... Figured his momma
would have taken away his computer by now...

I was setting up a new newsreader and figured I'd check in on r.a.p and
yank a few of the leftist politically correct chains around here... Nice
to know that I can still get a rise out of them...

> Bertie became my new rump ranger when I called him on his obsession over
> MX. His pathological need to respond to every, single post MX makes with
> brilliant comebacks like "****wit" has made him far more destructive to
> this group than MX could ever be.
>
> And now he apparently feels the need to do the same to me. It's funny,
> really, in a pathetic sort of way.

So, he's got the hots for MXS *and* you? I guess that doesn't let you
feel all that unique then... <snicker>

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:7PYgj.291810$Fc.131285@attbi_s21:

>> I haven't been around r.a.p in awhile... I don't remember you from
>> back when I used to hang around here... Are you the new troll of the
>> group? Or are you a nym-shift of MXS to bypass my MXS-troll filter?
>> From reading the recent posts, it seems that you have the hots for
>> Jay or something... What's up? Did Jay **** in your Wheaties or
>> something?
>
> Dude! I was wondering where you've been. Glad to see you're back.
>
> Bertie became my new rump ranger when I called him on his obsession
> over MX. His pathological need to respond to every, single post MX
> makes with brilliant comebacks like "****wit" has made him far more
> destructive to this group than MX could ever be.

Nope.

>
> And now he apparently feels the need to do the same to me. It's
> funny, really, in a pathetic sort of way.



Well, I think so.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>Grumman-581 > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:54:45 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sure. Or any other sort of correct, for that matter.
>>>
>>> I haven't been around r.a.p in awhile... I don't remember you from
>>> back when I used to hang around here... Are you the new troll of the
>>> group? Or are you a nym-shift of MXS to bypass my MXS-troll filter?
>>> From reading the recent posts, it seems that you have the hots for
Jay
>>> or something... What's up? Did Jay **** in your Wheaties or
>>> something?
>>>
>>
>>Nope, I just like tormenting idiots.
>>
>>Call it a fault. Call it a gift. it is what it is.
>>
>>Ennh.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Based on my past experiences with this dip****, you're gonna have
> a LOT of idiocy to work with.
> He almost makes MX look sane.
>
> Almost
>

I was thinkin.


Bertie
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBR4R4bZMoscYxZNI5AQG59QP+MaEs9xz4+ik6Axh1ZQ ZJ5kgPm4fZJbRr
> gsgWKpk1XQwbgeVpviimh2YcjuloSWy4cf6xlxAtHQI4s18Mjl GbRx9LT11u01mY
> BOwrYvUYXjl9IPiXPkJ/v3kCuU71HBjoKUtdeDKMzl1PYCczMH/nKZrIyy3fcuOH
> WF2mpit3Qi0=
> =xOaS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:30:05 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
>> Based on my past experiences with this dip****, you're gonna have a
>> LOT of idiocy to work with.
>> He almost makes MX look sane.
>>
>> Almost
>
> Coming from someone that hides behind a cowardly remailer, that really
> means something... Not...
>

Oh it makes no difference to me.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> The scientists are so convinced that they are right
>> they refuse to look any alternate points of view.
>>
>
> That's utter BS - and you probably know it.
>

If scientists even start to do research into non-Human caused GW the
priests of the newest religion start screaming "Their funded by big oil."

Much like the church used to scream, "Their power is from demons."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13o9m5jmtjsrs36
@news.supernews.com:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> The scientists are so convinced that they are right
>>> they refuse to look any alternate points of view.
>>>
>>
>> That's utter BS - and you probably know it.
>>
>
> If scientists even start to do research into non-Human caused GW the
> priests of the newest religion start screaming "Their funded by big oil."


They have been doing research into non human causd climate change for
centuries now.
>
> Much like the church used to scream, "Their power is from demons."


So now you're desceninding into kookdom?

Bertie
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13o9m5jmtjsrs36
> @news.supernews.com:
>
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>>> The scientists are so convinced that they are right
>>>> they refuse to look any alternate points of view.
>>>>
>>> That's utter BS - and you probably know it.
>>>
>> If scientists even start to do research into non-Human caused GW the
>> priests of the newest religion start screaming "Their funded by big oil."
>
>
> They have been doing research into non human causd climate change for
> centuries now.
>> Much like the church used to scream, "Their power is from demons."
>
>
> So now you're desceninding into kookdom?
>
> Bertie
>


http://www.desmogblog.com/the-inconvenient-truth-about-robert-c-balling
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05908.cfm
http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
>> news:13o9m5jmtjsrs36 @news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>> Matt,
>>>>
>>>>> The scientists are so convinced that they are right
>>>>> they refuse to look any alternate points of view.
>>>>>
>>>> That's utter BS - and you probably know it.
>>>>
>>> If scientists even start to do research into non-Human caused GW the
>>> priests of the newest religion start screaming "Their funded by big
>>> oil."
>>
>>
>> They have been doing research into non human causd climate change for
>> centuries now.
>>> Much like the church used to scream, "Their power is from demons."
>>
>>
>> So now you're desceninding into kookdom?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/the-inconvenient-truth-about-robert-c-
balling
> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
> http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05908.cfm
> http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
> http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

Well, that answers that question.


Bertie

[Don Tabor]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Also you're going to have to replace florida.

How is a 17 inch rise in sea level over 100 years going to harm
Florida?




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Don Tabor > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>
> How is a 17 inch rise in sea level over 100 years going to harm
> Florida?
>

Didn't say it was. I just said it would have to be replaced.


have you been there?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in news:13oa1o54u0vubc9
@news.supernews.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Don Tabor > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>> How is a 17 inch rise in sea level over 100 years going to harm
>>> Florida?
>>>
>>
>> Didn't say it was. I just said it would have to be replaced.
>>
>>
>> have you been there?
>>
>
> The need to replace Florida comes from the Rat infestation not GW.

Who said anything about Bush?

>
> Here's a pick of the rats in question. http://tinyurl.com/23kyy8
>
>

Hey, just when I thought you were a lost cause!


I fjukking HATE Disney!

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Don Tabor > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>> How is a 17 inch rise in sea level over 100 years going to harm
>> Florida?
>>
>
> Didn't say it was. I just said it would have to be replaced.
>
>
> have you been there?
>

The need to replace Florida comes from the Rat infestation not GW.

Here's a pick of the rats in question. http://tinyurl.com/23kyy8

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > Bertie,
>
> >> I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.
>
> > That, too.
>
> That was just a city, not the entire country.

It does take a village to raise an idiot after all. Hillary said that
and she should know.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> >> Bob,
>
> >>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>
> >> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
> >> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
> >> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>
> > Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
> St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
> scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
> time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.
>
> Matt

CItes please; peer reviewed journals only.

This should be good!

Next up...."We'll fund the deficit with the Tooth Fairy tax! say
leading Republicans"

[[email protected]]

On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "news.verizon.net" > wrote innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>
> > I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look at
> > the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to split off
> > the the main church because of the views but the view of the main body
> > of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does not exist.
>
> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>
> Splinters!
>
> Bertie

"Life of Brian".

"Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>
>> > I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look
>> > at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to
>> > split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
>> > the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
>> > not exist.
>>
>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>
>> Splinters!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> "Life of Brian".
>
> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>
>

He he.

most quoted movie ever, I reckon.

bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 8:58 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "dVaridel" > wrote .au:
>
>
>
> > "John Mazor" wrote
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
> >>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
> >>> certain,
> >>> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and
> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> >>> and over and over and over and over
>
> >>> And still you won't get it.
>
> >> Now that's a sig worth considering.
>
> > ...... But but (tm) ...... it's more than 4 lines and there was no
> > "-----" thingy.
>
> You shoulda seen my old sig. It was several hundred lines.
>
> Bertie

Shoot you should see some of the WTC conspiracy whack-jobs; one line
body text and 1232.2321 sig lines.

Nutjobs, all of them.

My wife gets into the creationism thing sometimes as well and my reply
has always been that anyone trying to limit the Almighty to 6000 years
vs billions is borderline heretical and fails to grasp the meaning of
'omnipotent', etc, i.e., are they denying the very "all" part of
Almighty? See also alpha and omega.

We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
question is initiated that event).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 8, 8:58 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "dVaridel" > wrote
>> .au:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "John Mazor" wrote
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>> >>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is
>> >>> 100% certain,
>> >>> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> >>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> >>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> >>> and over and over
>>
>> >>> And still you won't get it.
>>
>> >> Now that's a sig worth considering.
>>
>> > ...... But but (tm) ...... it's more than 4 lines and there was no
>> > "-----" thingy.
>>
>> You shoulda seen my old sig. It was several hundred lines.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Shoot you should see some of the WTC conspiracy whack-jobs; one line
> body text and 1232.2321 sig lines.

Oh believe me I've seen them. They give me a major headache.
>
> Nutjobs, all of them.

Oh yeah.

>
> My wife gets into the creationism thing sometimes as well and my reply
> has always been that anyone trying to limit the Almighty to 6000 years
> vs billions is borderline heretical and fails to grasp the meaning of
> 'omnipotent', etc, i.e., are they denying the very "all" part of
> Almighty? See also alpha and omega.
>
> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
> question is initiated that event).
>

Well, don't know what we are but anyone who believes the set of
fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes
> >>>> that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>
> >>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>
> >>>> Bertie
>
> >>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with anything
> >>> close to certainty next month why the hell should I believe them
> >>> when they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years down the road?
>
> >> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last
> >> twenty years and is getting better all the time, short term
> >> certainly. I never cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft
> >> are, for the most part, and terminal forecasting is probably ten
> >> times more accurate than it was even ten or fifteen years ago.
>
> >> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend
> >> seems to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and lows..
> >>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>
> >> Mmm me too.
>
> >> Shame about the everglades, though.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the
> > Western US. Hasn't been the case.
>
> > Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst Hurricane
> > seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they keep saying
> > that every year sooner or later they are going to be right.
>
> OK, point taken.
>
> Of course if the Wx is chaging dramatically, then extremes will become
> more common and they'll be worknig with an ever more unfamiliar model.
> I'm looking at a very fierce gale at the moment.and we've lost more
> trees this year than we have in all the years I've lived at this place.
>
> Bertie

The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and floods...if
everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is subject to
flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance that will be
another bit of money out of circulation or do with out and then depend
upon the largess of strangers to help you rebuild. Either way the
economy takes a hit. People seem to think that agencies like FEMA
somehow appear out of thin air and don't realize that they are part of
'we the people'.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx
>> >>>> changes that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>>
>> >>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>
>> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with
>> >>> anything close to certainty next month why the hell should I
>> >>> believe them when they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years
>> >>> down the road?
>>
>> >> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last
>> >> twenty years and is getting better all the time, short term
>> >> certainly. I never cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft
>> >> are, for the most part, and terminal forecasting is probably ten
>> >> times more accurate than it was even ten or fifteen years ago.
>>
>> >> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend
>> >> seems to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and
>> >> lows..
>> >>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>>
>> >> Mmm me too.
>>
>> >> Shame about the everglades, though.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the
>> > Western US. Hasn't been the case.
>>
>> > Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst
>> > Hurricane seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they
>> > keep saying that every year sooner or later they are going to be
>> > right.
>>
>> OK, point taken.
>>
>> Of course if the Wx is chaging dramatically, then extremes will
>> become more common and they'll be worknig with an ever more
>> unfamiliar model. I'm looking at a very fierce gale at the moment.and
>> we've lost more trees this year than we have in all the years I've
>> lived at this place.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and floods...if
> everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is subject to
> flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance that will be
> another bit of money out of circulation or do with out and then depend
> upon the largess of strangers to help you rebuild. Either way the
> economy takes a hit. People seem to think that agencies like FEMA
> somehow appear out of thin air and don't realize that they are part of
> 'we the people'.
>
s
Sorry, I don't follow. You mnean the money going towards insurance is
money that is not spent elswhere on a more economically stimulating
area? IOW it doesn't produce?

Money to me is something for throwing off the back of trains according
to mrs bunyip.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 9, 12:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> >>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx
> >> >>>> changes that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>
> >> >>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>
> >> >>>> Bertie
>
> >> >>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with
> >> >>> anything close to certainty next month why the hell should I
> >> >>> believe them when they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years
> >> >>> down the road?
>
> >> >> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last
> >> >> twenty years and is getting better all the time, short term
> >> >> certainly. I never cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft
> >> >> are, for the most part, and terminal forecasting is probably ten
> >> >> times more accurate than it was even ten or fifteen years ago.
>
> >> >> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend
> >> >> seems to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and
> >> >> lows..
> >> >>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>
> >> >> Mmm me too.
>
> >> >> Shame about the everglades, though.
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the
> >> > Western US. Hasn't been the case.
>
> >> > Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst
> >> > Hurricane seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they
> >> > keep saying that every year sooner or later they are going to be
> >> > right.
>
> >> OK, point taken.
>
> >> Of course if the Wx is chaging dramatically, then extremes will
> >> become more common and they'll be worknig with an ever more
> >> unfamiliar model. I'm looking at a very fierce gale at the moment.and
> >> we've lost more trees this year than we have in all the years I've
> >> lived at this place.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and floods...if
> > everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is subject to
> > flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance that will be
> > another bit of money out of circulation or do with out and then depend
> > upon the largess of strangers to help you rebuild. Either way the
> > economy takes a hit. People seem to think that agencies like FEMA
> > somehow appear out of thin air and don't realize that they are part of
> > 'we the people'.
>
> s
> Sorry, I don't follow. You mnean the money going towards insurance is
> money that is not spent elswhere on a more economically stimulating
> area? IOW it doesn't produce?
>
> Money to me is something for throwing off the back of trains according
> to mrs bunyip.
>
> Bertie

If the floodplains as defined by the USGS continue to expand (as they
have here, suddenly I'm in a flood plain!) insurance will be hard to
come by and/or more expensive. Most folks think of premiums as money
'thrown off the back of a train' in any case...until they need it.
Mudslides, tornadoes, floods...think of GW (bush too) as Spring x2 (to
start).

Picture the effect on the economy when what little discretionary
income folks have left after making the minimums to MC and Visa goes
toward food because the weather patterns have changed and/or the land
is being used for ethanol production <snort>. Folks will riot not
because they can't afford gas for their SUVs, they'll riot because
they can't afford cable to numb their brains.

It will be an interesting time for sure.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
>Money to me is something for throwing off the back of trains according
>to mrs bunyip.
>
>Bertie

Or throwing at airplanes..according to mrs. Kloudy

why was this thread started anyway?
isn't there a politics/ alt.lithium.withdrawl group somewhere to talk about
fascism, hillary, GW etc.?

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7df6b55f7b7e8@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>>Money to me is something for throwing off the back of trains according
>>to mrs bunyip.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Or throwing at airplanes..according to mrs. Kloudy

Well, exactly. Mine's whining about getting the front porch rebuilt
instead.
It's still standing for ****'s sake!
And she knows NOTHING about the stuctural qualities of plastic wood filler.

>
> why was this thread started anyway?

Ask Jay.


> isn't there a politics/ alt.lithium.withdrawl group somewhere to talk
> about fascism, hillary, GW etc.?
>

I never let an idiotic remark pass. It's pretty much my only firm rule in
life.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 9, 12:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:9cd5f860-161f-4b25-b2f2-

>> m:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx
>> >> >>>> changes that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>>
>> >> >>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>
>> >> >>>> Bertie
>>
>> >> >>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with
>> >> >>> anything close to certainty next month why the hell should I
>> >> >>> believe them when they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years
>> >> >>> down the road?
>>
>> >> >> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the
>> >> >> last twenty years and is getting better all the time, short
>> >> >> term certainly. I never cease to be amazed at how accurate
>> >> >> winds aloft are, for the most part, and terminal forecasting is
>> >> >> probably ten times more accurate than it was even ten or
>> >> >> fifteen years ago.
>>
>> >> >> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the
>> >> >> trend seems to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record
>> >> >> highs and lows..
>> >> >>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>>
>> >> >> Mmm me too.
>>
>> >> >> Shame about the everglades, though.
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in
>> >> > the Western US. Hasn't been the case.
>>
>> >> > Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst
>> >> > Hurricane seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they
>> >> > keep saying that every year sooner or later they are going to be
>> >> > right.
>>
>> >> OK, point taken.
>>
>> >> Of course if the Wx is chaging dramatically, then extremes will
>> >> become more common and they'll be worknig with an ever more
>> >> unfamiliar model. I'm looking at a very fierce gale at the
>> >> moment.and we've lost more trees this year than we have in all the
>> >> years I've lived at this place.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and
>> > floods...if everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is
>> > subject to flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance
>> > that will be another bit of money out of circulation or do with out
>> > and then depend upon the largess of strangers to help you rebuild.
>> > Either way the economy takes a hit. People seem to think that
>> > agencies like FEMA somehow appear out of thin air and don't realize
>> > that they are part of 'we the people'.
>>
>> s
>> Sorry, I don't follow. You mnean the money going towards insurance is
>> money that is not spent elswhere on a more economically stimulating
>> area? IOW it doesn't produce?
>>
>> Money to me is something for throwing off the back of trains
>> according to mrs bunyip.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If the floodplains as defined by the USGS continue to expand (as they
> have here, suddenly I'm in a flood plain!) insurance will be hard to
> come by and/or more expensive. Most folks think of premiums as money
> 'thrown off the back of a train' in any case...until they need it.
> Mudslides, tornadoes, floods...think of GW (bush too) as Spring x2 (to
> start).
>
> Picture the effect on the economy when what little discretionary
> income folks have left after making the minimums to MC and Visa goes
> toward food because the weather patterns have changed and/or the land
> is being used for ethanol production <snort>. Folks will riot not
> because they can't afford gas for their SUVs, they'll riot because
> they can't afford cable to numb their brains.
>
> It will be an interesting time for sure.


I thinnk so. Our Wx has been insane this winter. OTOH I have been
getting very little x-wind practice in the las few years..

Bertie
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> but anyone who believes the set of
> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
>

Actually, no, I don't think so. Too much harm has been done by those
who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
benefits for society.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> fails to grasp the meaning of
> 'omnipotent',
>

Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the 1930s:
"Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all the time
and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he would come
up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> but anyone who believes the set of
>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
>>
>
> Actually, no, I don't think so. Too much harm has been done by those
> who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
> benefits for society.
>

Well, you try taking it off of them.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bertie,
>
>> but anyone who believes the set of
>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
>>
>
> Actually, no, I don't think so. Too much harm has been done by those
> who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
> benefits for society.
>

And atheists have been all sweetness and light. How many people did
Stalin have killed?

Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be
explained by the nature of man.

[Jim Logajan]

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bertie,
>>
>>> but anyone who believes the set of
>>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, no, I don't think so. Too much harm has been done by those
>> who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
>> benefits for society.
>>
>
> And atheists have been all sweetness and light.

Shucks no - sometimes we go for a Guiness.

> How many people did Stalin have killed?

Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of their
religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?

> Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be
> explained by the nature of man.

Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a work of
men.

Since evolution vs creation was brought up somewhere up-thread, do you
think the Tennessee Butler Act and the subsequent verdict of the 1925
"Scopes Trial" served justice or not?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Bertie,
>>>
>>>> but anyone who believes the set of
>>>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, no, I don't think so. Too much harm has been done by those
>>> who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
>>> benefits for society.
>>>
>>
>> And atheists have been all sweetness and light.
>
> Shucks no - sometimes we go for a Guiness.
>
>> How many people did Stalin have killed?
>
> Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of
> their religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?
>
>> Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be
>> explained by the nature of man.
>
> Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a
> work of men.
>
> Since evolution vs creation was brought up somewhere up-thread, do you
> think the Tennessee Butler Act and the subsequent verdict of the 1925
> "Scopes Trial" served justice or not?
>

Good grief, i'm redundant.

Bertie

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:50:02 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> So you're still in a ****y mood 'cause you haven't gotten to kill anyone,
> yet?

Well, you know what that say -- the night's still young...

> Or did the KKK turn you down for that "Grand Dragon" job?

Typical leftist crap... Anyone who doesn't fit into your leftist
politically correct way of thinking must be a member of the KKK, right?
Maybe once you grow up, you'll realize that it's possible to hate a large
number of people without being a racist...

One of the problems of setting up a new computer / newsreader is that all
your old nutcase filters need to be created... Thanks for reminding me
about that dizum.com needed to be added to it...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:50:02 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> So you're still in a ****y mood 'cause you haven't gotten to kill
>> anyone, yet?
>
> Well, you know what that say -- the night's still young...
>
>> Or did the KKK turn you down for that "Grand Dragon" job?
>
> Typical leftist crap... Anyone who doesn't fit into your leftist
> politically correct way of thinking must be a member of the KKK,

And anyone who thinks you belong to the KK is a leftist, obviously.

Oops, you;re ignoring me. Sorry,.

Carry on, fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
> question is initiated that event).

So what's wrong with the idea that God is really a brilliant mathematician?
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[WolfRat]

>>>>> but anyone who believes the set of
>>>>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.

I know of no book of fairy tales that has survived 4000
years and dozens of translations.If you can name a "fairy
tale" that has I am all ears.

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> > wrote
>
>> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
>> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
>> question is initiated that event).
>
> So what's wrong with the idea that God is really a brilliant
> mathematician? <g>

Or a very bad one:

"WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"

42

I've seen rumors that God's Final Message to His Creation is:

"We apologise for the inconvenience."

[Grumman-581[_5_]]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:08:43 -0500, WolfRat wrote:

> I know of no book of fairy tales that has survived 4000 years and dozens
> of translations.If you can name a "fairy tale" that has I am all ears.

According to the following link, it is about 3000 years old from a written
aspect... Anything that might have come before that would have been
basically oral tradition...
http://www.allabouttruth.org/is-the-bible-the-oldest-religious-book-faq.htm

OK, only about 2700 years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey

The "bible" is basically a book of Jewish mythology... As it has always
been, one person's mythology is another person's religion... We consider
the multi-dieties of the Greeks and Romans as mythology, but to them it
was a religion...

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

[Jim Logajan]

WolfRat > wrote:
> I know of no book of fairy tales that has survived 4000
> years and dozens of translations.

It's not clear that the King James, or any other translation into english,
can be considered to have "survived" the translation to that language. I
know of disputes among scholars of an item presumably as straightforward as
the "Ten Commandments."

I'm also not sure where you get "4000 years." Certainly the New Testament
can't be more than ~2000 years old! Even Roman stories of Roman gods
predates all the material in the New Testament.

> If you can name a "fairy tale" that has I am all ears.

Depending on what one classifies as "fairy tale" I think I can name several
contenders:

1) Basically all the surviving stories of Greek mythology.
2) Basically all the surviving stories of Chinese mythology.
3) Basically all the surviving stories of Egyption mythology.
4) The teachings of the Zoroastrianism religion, which I believe predate
all the stories in the bible.
5) The Bhagavad Gita.

......

[Matt W. Barrow]

"WolfRat" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>>>> but anyone who believes the set of fairytales known as the bible is
>>>>>> welcome to it.
>
> I know of no book of fairy tales that has survived 4000 years and dozens
> of translations.

Flunked History and Anthropology, did 'ya?

> If you can name a "fairy tale" that has I am all ears.

Given you're take that "acceptance is validation", it's hardly worth wasting
the bandwidth.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> WolfRat > wrote:
>> I know of no book of fairy tales that has survived 4000
>> years and dozens of translations.
>
> It's not clear that the King James, or any other translation into english,
> can be considered to have "survived" the translation to that language. I
> know of disputes among scholars of an item presumably as straightforward
> as
> the "Ten Commandments."
>
> I'm also not sure where you get "4000 years." Certainly the New Testament
> can't be more than ~2000 years old! Even Roman stories of Roman gods
> predates all the material in the New Testament.
>
>> If you can name a "fairy tale" that has I am all ears.
>
> Depending on what one classifies as "fairy tale" I think I can name
> several
> contenders:
>
> 1) Basically all the surviving stories of Greek mythology.
> 2) Basically all the surviving stories of Chinese mythology.
> 3) Basically all the surviving stories of Egyption mythology.
> 4) The teachings of the Zoroastrianism religion, which I believe predate
> all the stories in the bible.
> 5) The Bhagavad Gita.
>
Not to mention "Esops Fables"...though that's only about 2300 years old.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>>> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
>>> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
>>> question is initiated that event).
>>
>> So what's wrong with the idea that God is really a brilliant
>> mathematician? <g>
>
> Or a very bad one:
>
> "WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"
>
> 42
>
> I've seen rumors that God's Final Message to His Creation is:
>
> "We apologise for the inconvenience."

....We're having a "Going out of business" sale!!!

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> How many people did
> Stalin have killed?
>

"In The Name Of Atheism"? None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

But, nice try. Heard it before, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in
> :
>
>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>
>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look
>>>> at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to
>>>> split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
>>>> the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
>>>> not exist.
>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>
>>> Splinters!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> "Life of Brian".
>>
>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>
>>
>
> He he.
>
> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.

Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>
>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look
>>>>> at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to
>>>>> split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
>>>>> the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
>>>>> not exist.
>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>
>>>> Splinters!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>
>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He he.
>>
>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>
> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>

I've never even heard of it!

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3
> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look
>>>>>> at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to
>>>>>> split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
>>>>>> the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
>>>>>> not exist.
>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>
>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>
>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> He he.
>>>
>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>
>
> I've never even heard of it!

Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
ouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3
>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> wrote in
>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>>> om:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening
>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to
>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He he.
>>>>
>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>>
>>
>> I've never even heard of it!
>
> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>
>

Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
lightness of being"


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 3:42*pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
> >> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
> >>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>
> >>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. *Look
> >>>> at the Episcopal church. *Yes, there are groups threatening to
> >>>> split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
> >>>> the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
> >>>> not exist.
> >>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>
> >>> Splinters!
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> "Life of Brian".
>
> >> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>
> > He he.
>
> > most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>
> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

<snort>

Try Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Meatballs...geez...how "'80's". As if.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 7:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote . iphouse.com:
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3
> >> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>> wrote in
> >>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
>
> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> om:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
> >>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>
> >>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
> >>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. *Yes, there are groups threatening
> >>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
> >>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to
> >>>>>>> claim does not exist.
> >>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>
> >>>>>> Splinters!
>
> >>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>> "Life of Brian".
>
> >>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>
> >>>> He he.
>
> >>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
> >>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>
> >> I've never even heard of it!
>
> > Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>
> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
> lightness of being"
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

or The Color Purple. Or "Like Water, For Chocolate".

Nah, it was Steel Magnolias.

you're such a chick-yip.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jan 10, 7:09*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote
>> innews:4786c10e$0$27497$804603d3@auth
> .newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> >> news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3 @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>
>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>>> wrote in
>> >>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
>>
>> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>> om:
>>
>> >>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>> >>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>
>> >>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>> >>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. *Yes, there are groups
>> >>>>>>> threatening
>
>> >>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>> >>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem
>> >>>>>>> to claim does not exist.
>> >>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>
>> >>>>>> Splinters!
>>
>> >>>>>> Bertie
>> >>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>
>> >>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>
>> >>>> He he.
>>
>> >>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>> >>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>
>> >> I've never even heard of it!
>>
>> > Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>>
>> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
>> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
>> lightness of being"
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> or The Color Purple. Or "Like Water, For Chocolate".
>
> Nah, it was Steel Magnolias.
>
> you're such a chick-yip.
>

you do know chicks go to those movies too, right?

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> ouse.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491$804603d3
>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>>>> om:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening
>>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to
>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> He he.
>>>>>
>>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>>>
>>> I've never even heard of it!
>> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>>
>>
>
> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
> lightness of being"

The very one. You clearly chose wrong. Who goes around quoting Kundera?
"In Prague, in 1968, there lived a young doctor named Tomas... "

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 10, 3:42 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> wrote in
>>> :
>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look
>>>>>> at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to
>>>>>> split off the the main church because of the views but the view of
>>>>>> the main body of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does
>>>>>> not exist.
>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>> He he.
>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> <snort>
>
> Try Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
>
> Meatballs...geez...how "'80's". As if.

Well, duh.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786d023$0$27497$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> ouse.com:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491
$804603d3
>>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
>> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>>>>> om:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>>>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups
threatening
>>>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>>>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem
to
>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He he.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>>>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>>>>
>>>> I've never even heard of it!
>>> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
>> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
>> lightness of being"
>
> The very one. You clearly chose wrong. Who goes around quoting
Kundera?
> "In Prague, in 1968, there lived a young doctor named Tomas... "

Well, it did get me more action
than going to see the life of brian with someone who insisted on saying
"this is crap"! as louly as he could during the whole thing ( apologies
to anyone who was there, BTW)
I can't even imagine the girl who would have got worked up over
meatballs.

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786d023$0$27497$804603d3
> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>>> ouse.com:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491
> $804603d3
>>>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
>>> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>> om:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>>>>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups
> threatening
>>>>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>>>>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem
> to
>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He he.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>>>>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've never even heard of it!
>>>> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
>>> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
>>> lightness of being"
>> The very one. You clearly chose wrong. Who goes around quoting
> Kundera?
>> "In Prague, in 1968, there lived a young doctor named Tomas... "
>
> Well, it did get me more action
> than going to see the life of brian with someone who insisted on saying
> "this is crap"! as louly as he could during the whole thing ( apologies
> to anyone who was there, BTW)
> I can't even imagine the girl who would have got worked up over
> meatballs.

You should have seen the audience at the drive-in where I ran that $#@!
movie over and over and over...usually paired with "Stripes".

[dVaridel]

> wrote
> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
> question is initiated that event).

Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything

Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded

Hmmmmm

[Matt Whiting]

dVaridel wrote:
> > wrote
>> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
>> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
>> question is initiated that event).
>
> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>
> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>
> Hmmmmm
>
>

Yes, I tried to believe in the "scientific" explanations for the origin
and evolution of our world and species, but I just didn't have enough
faith to believe that scenario. :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:GZThj.1429$2n4.31885
@news1.epix.net:

> dVaridel wrote:
>> > wrote
>>> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
>>> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
>>> question is initiated that event).
>>
>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>>
>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>>
>> Hmmmmm
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I tried to believe in the "scientific" explanations for the origin
> and evolution of our world and species, but I just didn't have enough
> brains to believe that scenario. :-)
>

I fixored it.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jan 10, 9:24 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786d023$0$27497$804603d3
> > @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> ouse.com:
>
> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491
> > $804603d3
> >>>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>
> >>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>>>>>> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
> >>> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
> >>>>>>> om:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
> >>>>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups
> > threatening
> >>>>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
> >>>>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem
> > to
> >>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
> >>>>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>
> >>>>>>>>> Splinters!
>
> >>>>>>>>> Bertie
> >>>>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>
> >>>>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>
> >>>>>>> He he.
>
> >>>>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
> >>>>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>
> >>>>> I've never even heard of it!
> >>>> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>
> >>> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
> >>> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
> >>> lightness of being"
> >> The very one. You clearly chose wrong. Who goes around quoting
> > Kundera?
> >> "In Prague, in 1968, there lived a young doctor named Tomas... "
>
> > Well, it did get me more action
> > than going to see the life of brian with someone who insisted on saying
> > "this is crap"! as louly as he could during the whole thing ( apologies
> > to anyone who was there, BTW)
> > I can't even imagine the girl who would have got worked up over
> > meatballs.
>
> You should have seen the audience at the drive-in where I ran that $#@!
> movie over and over and over...usually paired with "Stripes".

I'm sorry.

I can only imagine...Stripes once or twice a decade would be
sufficient...

"...the horror...."

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:24 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786d023$0$27497$804603d3
>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>>>>> ouse.com:
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4786915d$0$27491
>>> $804603d3
>>>>>>> @auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:b89c2dac-4905-476f-9ba0-08f0b795b9f6
>>>>> @k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>>>>>>>> om:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 8:23 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> innews:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look at the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups
>>> threatening
>>>>>>>>>>>> to split off the the main church because of the views but the
>>>>>>>>>>>> view of the main body of the church is exactly what you seem
>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>> We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..
>>>>>>>>>>> Splinters!
>>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>>> "Life of Brian".
>>>>>>>>>> "Wolf nipple chips, get'em while they're 'ot, they're lovely!".
>>>>>>>>> He he.
>>>>>>>>> most quoted movie ever, I reckon.
>>>>>>>> Nah, can't hold a candle to "Meatballs" for that...
>>>>>>> I've never even heard of it!
>>>>>> Clearly you've led a life deprived of culture.
>>>>> Was it a Bill Murray Movie? I vaguely recollect it. I think it might
>>>>> have been in the other theatre when i went to see "The unbearable
>>>>> lightness of being"
>>>> The very one. You clearly chose wrong. Who goes around quoting
>>> Kundera?
>>>> "In Prague, in 1968, there lived a young doctor named Tomas... "
>>> Well, it did get me more action
>>> than going to see the life of brian with someone who insisted on saying
>>> "this is crap"! as louly as he could during the whole thing ( apologies
>>> to anyone who was there, BTW)
>>> I can't even imagine the girl who would have got worked up over
>>> meatballs.
>> You should have seen the audience at the drive-in where I ran that $#@!
>> movie over and over and over...usually paired with "Stripes".
>
> I'm sorry.
>
> I can only imagine...Stripes once or twice a decade would be
> sufficient...
>
> "...the horror...."

Imagine the horror of that double bill every other week, month after
month...

Then there was the 4th of July weekend when we ran a Russ Meyer
marathon. The rednecks were lining up for hours to get in, and when we
sold out all spaces on the ramp they parked out on the highway and
walked in with lawn chairs and coolers of beverages.

Oddly, though, Rocky Horror never worked as a drive-in flick.

[Some Other Guy]

dVaridel wrote:
> > wrote
>> We are nothing more than the outcome of a sheaf of mathematical
>> principles set in motion by the Big Bang (now the truly interesting
>> question is initiated that event).
>
> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>
> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded


In the beginning, there was nothing.

And then God said, "Let there be light".

And then there was still nothing, but at least now you could see it.

[dVaridel]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
> I fixored myself.

About time, there are too many Baby Bunyips running around this newsgroup
....... :-)


David


--
A lot of people are afraid of heights. I'm afraid of widths.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>> I fixored myself.
>
> About time, there are too many Baby Bunyips running around this
> newsgroup ...... :-)
>
>

They've all run away somewhere now! I hope they weren't frightened away or
TOSsed.

Actually Altopia wouldn't TOS them for that. Since I only rarely use an
actual domain in my e-mail, he couldn't actually forge me anyway. not in a
way that would get him TOSsed.

Not that I'd komplain about him in any case. The more bunyips the merrier!

Bertie

[dVaridel]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
> "dVaridel" wrote
>> About time, there are too many Baby Bunyips running around this
>> newsgroup ...... :-)
>>
> They've all run away somewhere now! I hope they weren't frightened away

I dunno, I used to live near a Bunyip farm when I was in Dubbo - the never
ending yipping and yapping as a little draining.

On the other hand, they're quite delicious fried in a little garlic and
olive oil with a side dish of potato salad.

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>
> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>

And those "Others" would be who? It wouldn't be scientists....

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[dVaridel]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
> DVaridel,
>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>>
>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>
> And those "Others" would be who? It wouldn't be scientists....

Dunno. For the purpose of the exercise I split 'um into 2 groups, the
"Creationist" and the "Other". There are scientists in both camps. There
would be "Christians" in both camps too but I image the "Atheists" are all
in the "Other" group ..... :-)

Beginning to have a 'Welcome to Hell'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Atkinson) feel to this branch of the
thread.



David Varidel

-----
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who use binary, and those
who don't.

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> There are scientists in both camps
>
Uhm, no. No scientist would be in the "Others" camp. You may think you
have described anything scientific there, but you haven't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> DVaridel,
>
> > There are scientists in both camps
> >
> Uhm, no. No scientist would be in the "Others" camp. You may think you
> have described anything scientific there, but you haven't.

No scientist today postulates a beginning?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>

Did I say that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>
> Did I say that?

Why do your think no scientist is included in that "other" group?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Gig601XLBuilder" wrote:
>>
>
>
> Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the Western
> US. Hasn't been the case.
>
> Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst Hurricane
> seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they keep saying that
> every year sooner or later they are going to be right.

Sorry I'm late, but this one is too juicy to resist.

The guy who made those predictions is a GW denier.

Guess that shows the value of cherry picking data, doesn't it?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> isn't there a politics/ alt.lithium.withdrawl group somewhere to talk
>> about fascism, hillary, GW etc.?

> I never let an idiotic remark pass. It's pretty much my only firm rule in
> life.


I follow that rule.

It's an awesome responsibility in a world containing so many idiots.

But it passes the time.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen, and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>> "dVaridel" wrote
>>> About time, there are too many Baby Bunyips running around this
>>> newsgroup ...... :-)
>>>
>> They've all run away somewhere now! I hope they weren't frightened
>> away
>
> I dunno, I used to live near a Bunyip farm when I was in Dubbo - the
> never ending yipping and yapping as a little draining.
>
> On the other hand, they're quite delicious fried in a little garlic
> and olive oil with a side dish of potato salad.
>
>
>

I just eat em raw. More roughage.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> isn't there a politics/ alt.lithium.withdrawl group somewhere to
>>> talk about fascism, hillary, GW etc.?
>
>> I never let an idiotic remark pass. It's pretty much my only firm
>> rule in life.
>
>
> I follow that rule.
>
> It's an awesome responsibility in a world containing so many idiots.
>
> But it passes the time.
>

Well, exactly

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> > No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>>
>> Did I say that?
>
> Why do your think no scientist is included in that "other" group?
>

Because creationism isn't science.



Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the
beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Slug]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bob,
>
> because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the
> beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science.
>

Throughout the entire Clinton presidency Hillary's husband
waved a succession of his girlfriends in front of her face.
Did she ever cry in public? Not that I can remember. But let
someone ask her how a campaign is affecting her and here
come the tears. Don't you ladies realize how phony she is?

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> No scientist today postulates a beginning?

IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before"
and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the
question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".

By the way, I would recommend the following book for anyone interested
in the physics and philosophy of time:

"Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of
Time" by Huw Price.

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

Tough reading because it requires some deep thinking, but no math. Those
with a very strong background in math and physics at the senior to
graduate college level might find this book worth some study:

"The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before"
> and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the
> question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".

_A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/019511
> 7980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

That should have been:
http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Basis-Direction-Frontiers-Collection/dp/3540680004/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

[Jim Logajan]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
>> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
>> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
>> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before"
>> and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the
>> question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".
>
> _A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9.

I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals directly
with the question:

"The Beginning of Time"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf

As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a meta-time (in
this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is basically a closed
curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that "real time" has a
"beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary time and space surface.

By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's views
in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It appears that
Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one occasion.

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>
> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>
> Hmmmmm
>

Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:

Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up
this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and
kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that
guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or
otherwise.

Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying
to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing,
too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but
one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in this process.

Hmmmm

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[dVaridel]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
> because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the
> beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science.

::chuckle::

Okay then, to be more precise the groups should have been labelled
"Creationists" and "Non-Creationists" ..... just seemed a little wordy to
me.

The Big Bang idea 'has no basis in science'. So what's "science's" take
this week?

In the last few years I've read that there was stuff that had done nothing
forever then it exploded. It is expected to slow and then shrink back to a
tight lump of stuff.

Close?


David
--
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.

[dVaridel]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up
> this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and
> kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that
> guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or
> otherwise.

This is an inflammatory statement that does not reflect the views of
Creationists, however, debates on the subject normally lower to this level
of name calling very quickly. I don't take offence. In the 'Christian'
newsgroup I hang out in this topic is hotly 'debated' twice a year or so.
No resolution, just a whole lot of yadda yadda.


> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying
> to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing,
> too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but
> one we wholeheartedly embrace.

If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove that
they have "The Answer" (tm).

Now, what sort of plane do you fly? I'm still stuck in a Warrior but the
school has installed an autopilot so I get to do a little sight-seeing!


David
--
I was reading the dictionary the other day. I thought it was a poem about
everything.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "Thomas Borchert" wrote
>> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
>> up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
>> and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
>> of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
>> political or otherwise.
>
> This is an inflammatory statement that does not reflect the views of
> Creationists, however, debates on the subject normally lower to this
> level of name calling very quickly. I don't take offence. In the
> 'Christian' newsgroup I hang out in this topic is hotly 'debated'
> twice a year or so. No resolution, just a whole lot of yadda yadda.
>
>
>> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
>> trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good
>> thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live
>> with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace.
>
> If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
> that they have "The Answer" (tm).

(tm) by christians, eh?



Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote:
>> No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>
> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before"
> and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the
> question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".
>
> By the way, I would recommend the following book for anyone interested
> in the physics and philosophy of time:
>
> "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of
> Time" by Huw Price.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>
> Tough reading because it requires some deep thinking, but no math. Those
> with a very strong background in math and physics at the senior to
> graduate college level might find this book worth some study:
>
> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-Directions/dp/0195117980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a

I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree with
much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> DVaridel,
>
>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>>
>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>>
>> Hmmmmm
>>
>
> Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:
>
> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up
> this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and
> kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that
> guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or
> otherwise.
>
> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying
> to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing,
> too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but
> one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in this process.
>
> Hmmmm
>

Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man...
Hint, it wasn't creationists.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Bob Noel > wrote:
>>> No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>>
>> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
>> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
>> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
>> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support
>> "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would
>> then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".
>>
>> By the way, I would recommend the following book for anyone
>> interested in the physics and philosophy of time:
>>
>> "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics
>> of Time" by Huw Price.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
Directions/dp/01951
>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>
>> Tough reading because it requires some deep thinking, but no math.
>> Those with a very strong background in math and physics at the senior
>> to graduate college level might find this book worth some study:
>>
>> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
Directions/dp/01951
>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>
> I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree
> with
> much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
>

Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.

Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see
the error of his ways.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> DVaridel,
>>
>>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created
>>> everything
>>>
>>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm
>>>
>>
>> Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:
>>
>> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
>> up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
>> and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
>> of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
>> political or otherwise.
>>
>> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
>> trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good
>> thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live
>> with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in
>> this process.
>>
>> Hmmmm
>>
>
> Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man...
> Hint, it wasn't creationists.


Only because they're too dumb to make spitballs.

But not to use them.

Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:17:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Matt Whiting > wrote in
:
>
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Bob Noel > wrote:
>>>> No scientist today postulates a beginning?
>>>
>>> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
>>> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
>>> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
>>> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support
>>> "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would
>>> then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".
>>>
>>> By the way, I would recommend the following book for anyone
>>> interested in the physics and philosophy of time:
>>>
>>> "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics
>>> of Time" by Huw Price.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
>Directions/dp/01951
>>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>>
>>> Tough reading because it requires some deep thinking, but no math.
>>> Those with a very strong background in math and physics at the senior
>>> to graduate college level might find this book worth some study:
>>>
>>> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
>Directions/dp/01951
>>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>
>> I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree
>> with
>> much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
>>
>
>Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.

You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The
Restaurant at the End of the Universe".
>
>Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see
>the error of his ways.

Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as they
want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal govt and
religion. <:-))

Roger

>
>Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:15:17 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> DVaridel,
>>
>>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything
>>>
>>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm
>>>
>>
>> Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:
>>
>> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up
>> this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and
>> kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that
>> guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying
>> to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing,
>> too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but
>> one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in this process.
>>
>> Hmmmm
>>
>
>Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man...
>Hint, it wasn't creationists.
>

Nastiest weapon known to man? Hate.
Twasn't created by the scientists.

Roger

>Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> The Big Bang idea 'has no basis in science'.
>

If you think your description had anything to do with the Big Bang
theory, you'd be wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> Now, what sort of plane do you fly?
>

Socata TB-10 Tobago. Wider cabin than a Bo, but sadly, neither the
engine power nor the speed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[dVaridel]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote
> DVaridel,
>> Now, what sort of plane do you fly?
>
> Socata TB-10 Tobago. Wider cabin than a Bo, but sadly, neither the
> engine power nor the speed.

Cool - a couple of aero clubs in Sydney stocked up on the "TB" series in the
90's, but I haven't seen them down here in Melbourne.

Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with
"Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads)
is Other Pilot?


David

--
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:


>>>>
>>>> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
>>Directions/dp/01951
>>>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>>
>>> I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree
>>> with
>>> much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
>>>
>>
>>Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.
>
> You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The
> Restaurant at the End of the Universe".


Well, Hawkings quoted Adams fairly often so he might even agree with you.
>>
>>Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see
>>the error of his ways.
>
> Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as they
> want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal govt and
> religion. <:-))
>

And the vote.


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the
>>> concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would
>>> either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of
>>> some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support
>>> "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would
>>> then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time".
>>
>> _A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9.
>
> I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals
> directly with the question:
>
> "The Beginning of Time"
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf
>
> As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a
> meta-time (in this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is
> basically a closed curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that
> "real time" has a "beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary
> time and space surface.
>
> By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's
> views in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It
> appears that Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one
> occasion.
>
I think that at this point, the thread is going astray of the notion that
science is somehow concerned with questions about these issues; these are
philosophical matters that sometimes present an opportunity to be tested
by science. However, having read "A Brief History of Time", I'd point out
that Hawking presents more than one scenario regarding the linearity of
time and paradigms for a "beginning" and "end", and it seems to me that
this is an untestable question at this point in time.

Another book that covers some of these issues is John D. Barrow's "The
Book of Nothing", which I found to be quite enlightening about nothing.
;-) A very worthwhile read for those interested in grasping such
questions as these or even just gaining knowledge about the origins of
math and how the concept of the zero (and lack thereof) shaped human
culture and development.

To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
country around is simply lying to us.

Neil

[Thomas Borchert]

DVaridel,

> Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with
> "Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads)
> is Other Pilot?
>

Bo is short for the Beechcraft Bonanza. OP is usenet speak for "original
poster".

There are several TB owners from Australia at www.socata.org, some from
Melbourne, IIRC (if I recall correctly).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, dVaridel > posted:

> "Thomas Borchert" wrote
>> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
>> up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
>> and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
>> of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
>> political or otherwise.
>
> This is an inflammatory statement that does not reflect the views of
> Creationists, however, debates on the subject normally lower to this
> level of name calling very quickly.
>
As it does reflect the behaviours of Creationists, Christian and
otherwise, if it doesn't reflect the views of that population it only
raises questions about their hypocrasy.

>> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
>> trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a
>> good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not
>> only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace.
>
> If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
> that they have "The Answer" (tm).
>
According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim.

> Now, what sort of plane do you fly? I'm still stuck in a Warrior but
> the school has installed an autopilot so I get to do a little
> sight-seeing!
>
I happen to like Warriors, as I'm not in much of a hurry. Our club is
acquiring a couple of Cirrus SR-22s, and I'm not all that interested in
them. We also have a few (Bo)nanzas (to answer another poster's question
about "Bo"), and I have yet to go up in those either.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> DVaridel,
>>
>>> Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created
>>> everything
>>>
>>> Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded
>>>
>>> Hmmmmm
>>>
>>
>> Here's the answer I should have given in the first place:
>>
>> Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make
>> up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go
>> and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name
>> of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic,
>> political or otherwise.
>>
>> Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep
>> trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a
>> good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not
>> only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to
>> get hurt in this process.
>>
>> Hmmmm
>>
>
> Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man...
> Hint, it wasn't creationists.
>
Hmmm. Who used them on people? Hint... it wasn't the scientists. Some of
those on the Manhattan project suggested demonstrating the power of the
weapons in a non-lethal way, and others suggested that the science behind
them should be openly distributed in order to reduce the temptation to use
them. We know how that turned out.

Just because someting *can* be done does not mean that it must be.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, dVaridel > posted:

> In the last few years I've read that there was stuff that had done
> nothing forever then it exploded. It is expected to slow and then
> shrink back to a tight lump of stuff.
>
> Close?
>
No, not really.

Neil

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
> understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
> Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
> society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
> understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
> science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
> current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
> candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such
> as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
> country around is simply lying to us.

Well put.

Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential candidates
who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable political
platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate does not yet
exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22:

>> To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
>> understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
>> Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
>> our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
>> understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
>> science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
>> the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
>> Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
>> beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
>> downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.
>
> Well put.
>
> Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
> candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
> political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
> does not yet exist.

Shouldn't you be scrubbing some toilets?


Bertie

[Marissa Reichert]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
> >> Bertie,
> >>
> >>> but anyone who believes the set of
> >>> fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually, no, I don't think so.

Ahh, your religion is restricting what others can do. Nice.

> Too much harm has been done by those
> >> who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of
> >> benefits for society.

What is your objective score for all of the postives in addition to the
negatives, Tom?

> >>
> >
> > And atheists have been all sweetness and light.
>
> Shucks no - sometimes we go for a Guiness.
>
> > How many people did Stalin have killed?
>
> Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of their
> religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?

Oh my Jim, recent history is so easily forgotten or ignored by some. Here is a
little refresher on Joe Stalin:
Approximately 20 million people were killed by Stalin's reegime, including up
to 14.5 million starved to death for political reasons. At least 1 million were
executed for political "offences." At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled
or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to
the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number
of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.

What a gentleman, thank goodness he was athiest. Imagine how many people he
could have killed (and so much worse!!) had he found a religion? Nice
diversion attempt with the motives for his unthinkable horror, but the
discussion was about making the bible unwelcome, perhaps with the threat of
law, because of all the "negatives." But instead proved the point you appear to
be against. Stopping religion doesn't stop bad people. In fact, attempting to
stop religion would put you in fundamental agreement with Matthew Murray, who
in December 2007 started shooting in a Denver church, slaughtering people in
the name of athiesm because he proclaimed to hate
religion.
tinyurl.com/282qtx


>
>
> > Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be
> > explained by the nature of man.
>
> Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a work of
> men.

"Begs the question??" How so?

[Marissa Reichert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> > fails to grasp the meaning of
> > 'omnipotent',
> >
>
> Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the 1930s:
> "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all the time
> and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he would come
> up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"

Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either Winston
Churchill, or you are a Nazi.

A better question to ask, Tom, is why did Germans, in so large numbers,
become Nazis, or actively support them and their rise to power; the horrors
that Germany would unleash onto Europe and most of the world?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Marissa Reichert > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> > fails to grasp the meaning of
>> > 'omnipotent',
>> >
>>
>> Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
>> 1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
>> the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he
>> would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"
>
> Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
> Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.
>


You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.


Bertie

[Marissa Reichert]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Marissa Reichert > wrote in
> :
>
> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
> >
> >> > fails to grasp the meaning of
> >> > 'omnipotent',
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
> >> 1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
> >> the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all he
> >> would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"
> >
> > Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
> > Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.
> >
>
> You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.

Yeah, Winston was also a Nazi. Sure. Thanks for your important
contribution.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Marissa Reichert > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Marissa Reichert > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> >
>> >> > fails to grasp the meaning of
>> >> > 'omnipotent',
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ah, faint echos of Bertrand Russell, paraphrasing here from the
>> >> 1930s: "Do you really think that if there was a god and he had all
>> >> the time and all the power and all the knowledge in the world, all
he
>> >> would come up with is Winston Churchill and the Nazis?"
>> >
>> > Yeah, those are "all" of the people in the world. You are either
>> > Winston Churchill, or you are a Nazi.
>> >
>>
>> You could be both. Winnie, was, after all, a war criminal.
>
> Yeah, Winston was also a Nazi.


No, but if he did half the **** he did in his life nowadays, he'd be in
the dock at the hague.

Sure. Thanks for your important
> contribution.
>

No problem fjukkwit.


Bertie
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Marissa,

No objective standard. As I wrote, that was "my opinion". I stand by
it.

> A better question to ask,

It's a good question to ask - but it has nothing to do with our
discussion. You like herring of the red variety, it seems.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Marissa,

> Here is a
> little refresher on Joe Stalin:
>

Again: Stalin is a red herring. He did not commit his atrocities "in
the name of atheism".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marissa Reichert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Marissa,
>
> > Here is a
> > little refresher on Joe Stalin:
> >
>
> Again: Stalin is a red herring. He did not commit his atrocities "in
> the name of atheism".

Exactly! Atheism contradicts doing something "in the name of...."
But somehow 20 million people were killed (or worse!) without this
cause. I can't even imagine how horrible it must have been.

[Marissa Reichert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Marissa,
>
> No objective standard. As I wrote, that was "my opinion". I stand by
> it.

Perhaps, but sometimes it is useful when opinions have some supportable
factual basis.

>
>
> > A better question to ask,
>
> It's a good question to ask - but it has nothing to do with our
> discussion. You like herring of the red variety, it seems.

Oh of course not. Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
stopped Nazi horrors, right?

[Thomas Borchert]

Marissa,

> Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
> stopped Nazi horrors, right?
>

Huh?

Nobody has been talking about banning, but if human societies would
have come to the consensus to favor rationalism instead of religion
(one might argue that the Nazi ideology as well as communism were some
kind of quasi-religion - and people have done so at length) and that
would have stopped the Crusades, the genocide of native Americans (both
North and South), the Inquisition, the Pope advocating having as many
children as possible in modern-day Africa, 9/11 and all those other
examples of atrocities in the name of religion, that would have been
plenty, wouldn't it?

If reaching such a consensus is at all possible in humans is a
different and very interesting question.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marissa Reichert]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Marissa,
>
> > Afterall, I'm sure that banning religion would have
> > stopped Nazi horrors, right?
> >
>
> Huh?
>
> Nobody has been talking about banning, but if human societies would
> have come to the consensus to favor rationalism instead of religion
> (one might argue that the Nazi ideology as well as communism were some
> kind of quasi-religion - and people have done so at length) and that
> would have stopped the Crusades, the genocide of native Americans (both
> North and South), the Inquisition, the Pope advocating having as many
> children as possible in modern-day Africa, 9/11 and all those other
> examples of atrocities in the name of religion, that would have been
> plenty, wouldn't it?

I was unaware that a very significant portion of Africa's population were
following all of the pope's advocations.
By following your position, we could also argue that being anti-religious
is a religion in its own right.
Furthermore, I inquired about an objective score for positives as well.
Are they just to be dismissed with one brush since there were conflicts in
medival Europe, etc.? Frankly, you could make a better case for the
slightly less ludicroous position that Europe is responsible for creating
and exporting the world's problems all over the globe over the past 600+
years or so.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22...
>> To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
>> understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
>> Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our
>> society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
>> understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
>> science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the
>> current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any
>> candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs
>> (such
>> as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this
>> country around is simply lying to us.
>
> Well put.
>
> Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
> candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
> political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate
> does not yet exist.

Quite! They have even more troubles when ascertaining the origins of our
secular republic. The two issues are heavily intertwined and have been for
eons.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/01/hoary-old-chestnuts.htm

/quote

At least two presidential candidates earnestly want to recapture the land in
the name of God: Mike Huckabee, uncharismatic Baptist preacher, and Mitt
Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
country. Neither questions the morality of the secular application of his
altruist creed in any fundamental way: the welfare state. The other
presidential candidates bring God into their rhetoric only when they think
it prudent. Each wishes to subdue the kind of atheist who does not believe
in the mystical benefits of collectivism and involuntary servitude, to
indenture him to them against his will for the sake of “giving back” to the
national community, and thereby create a legacy for the candidate of being
the “savior” of the “public good” and promoter of “social justice.”

/end quote

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Marissa Reichert" > wrote in message
...
>

>> Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of their
>> religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?
>
> Oh my Jim, recent history is so easily forgotten or ignored by some. Here
> is a
> little refresher on Joe Stalin:
> Approximately 20 million people were killed by Stalin's reegime, including
> up
> to 14.5 million starved to death for political reasons. At least 1 million
> were
> executed for political "offences." At least 9.5 million more deported,
> exiled
> or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent
> to
> the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the
> number
> of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'.
>
> What a gentleman, thank goodness he was athiest.

And as Jim pointed out, it was merely that those millions were an impediemnt
to his power.

> Imagine how many people he
> could have killed (and so much worse!!) had he found a religion?

Like the Borgia's?

Or maybe Uncle Joe could have ordered that "Kill them all and let god sort
them out".

How about the 80 millions killed during the heyday of Christianity, the Dark
and Middle ages. Why do you think they're called "Dark Ages" anyway?

Dig a little bit: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ys4xw2 (Links to Amazon.com) so
that you can speak with credibility.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:18:13 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote in
>:

>Mitt Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
>country.

It sounds like Willard is a bigot.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:23:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
>>>Directions/dp/01951
>>>>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>>>
>>>> I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree
>>>> with
>>>> much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.
>>
>> You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The
>> Restaurant at the End of the Universe".
>
>
>Well, Hawkings quoted Adams fairly often so he might even agree with you.
>>>
>>>Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see
>>>the error of his ways.
>>
>> Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as they
>> want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal govt and
>> religion. <:-))
>>
>
>And the vote.
>

Amen! <:-))

Roger
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:23:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point-
>>>>Directions/dp/01951
>>>>>> 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a
>>>>>
>>>>> I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't
>>>>> agree with
>>>>> much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then.
>>>
>>> You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The
>>> Restaurant at the End of the Universe".
>>
>>
>>Well, Hawkings quoted Adams fairly often so he might even agree with
>>you.
>>>>
>>>>Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him
>>>>see the error of his ways.
>>>
>>> Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as
>>> they want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal
>>> govt and religion. <:-))
>>>
>>
>>And the vote.
>>
>
> Amen! <:-))


One newspaper sub, one vote!


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Marissa Reichert > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of
>> their religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power?
>
> Oh my Jim, recent history is so easily forgotten or ignored by some.
> Here is a little refresher on Joe Stalin:
[Stalin's atrocities elided for brevity...]

No disagreement on that account of history.

> Nice diversion attempt with the motives for his unthinkable
> horror, but the discussion was about making the bible unwelcome,
> perhaps with the threat of law, because of all the "negatives."

Thomas Borchert mentioned the "negatives" of biblical beliefs and appears
to have already replied. My own view is that to the extent beliefs (or
non-beliefs) are not imposed on others by force or otherwise infringe on
the life and liberty of others, the government should stay out of
people's lives.

> Stopping religion doesn't stop bad people.

Agreed.

> In fact, attempting to stop religion would
> put you in fundamental agreement with Matthew Murray, who in December
> 2007 started shooting in a Denver church, slaughtering people in the
> name of athiesm because he proclaimed to hate religion.
> tinyurl.com/282qtx

That was a tragedy. The fellow appeared to have mental health problems.
While I'd like to see less superstition in the world, I happen to think
that appeal to rationality is key to that goal; using force is a losing
proposition.

Since people change their views all the time without being threatened by
force, I disagree that wanting to reduce religion and superstition in the
world puts me in fundamental agreement with a nut case.

>> Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a
>> work of men.
>
> "Begs the question??" How so?

First my own (possibly erroneous) summary of the thread so far and an
extension of my own brief come-back:

Bertie: 'The Bible is a harmless set of fairytales.'
Borchert: 'Belief in the Bible has caused more harm than good.'
Gig: 'Don't blame God or a belief in God for people's actions.'

Me: 'But Gig, we haven't established whether the Bible is a set of fairy
tales or the Word of God. You've implicited established as a premise one
of the propositions under question.'

Implicitly putting one of the propostions to be proved or shown as one of
the premises is a logical fallacy that also goes by the name "begging the
question." There's more involved than that, but that's why I used "begs
the question."

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:40:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote :
<snip>
>The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and floods...if
>everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is subject to
>flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance that will be


And where pray tell, is this flood insurance going to come from?
We are unable to get flood insurance because we don't live in a flood
plane. On a flood plane Govt insurance is available which of course
comes from everyone. So if we get one of those heavy rains that the
ditches can not take care of it's SOL. OTOH if our sump pump quits
they'll cover that.

If you live along the Gulf coast, including most of Florida... Good
luck.

>another bit of money out of circulation or do with out and then depend
>upon the largess of strangers to help you rebuild. Either way the
>economy takes a hit. People seem to think that agencies like FEMA
>somehow appear out of thin air and don't realize that they are part of
>'we the people'.

That's how we get rid of the toxic laden mobile homes.

Roger

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:01:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>I thinnk so. Our Wx has been insane this winter. OTOH I have been
>getting very little x-wind practice in the las few years..

Come to Midland. Most days 18/36 and 06/24 do anything except line up
with the winds at 3BS. Hurry though, were getting AWOS and the airport
identifier is going to change.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>Bertie
>>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:40:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>>On Jan 8, 9:08 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote
>>> :
> <snip>
>>The really interesting deal with the Wx is insurance and floods...if
>>everyone in the country (seen the Midwest recently?) is subject to
>>flooding and is required to purchase flood insurance that will be
>
>
> And where pray tell, is this flood insurance going to come from?
> We are unable to get flood insurance because we don't live in a flood
> plane. On a flood plane Govt insurance is available which of course
> comes from everyone. So if we get one of those heavy rains that the
> ditches can not take care of it's SOL. OTOH if our sump pump quits
> they'll cover that.
>

That's "flood plain"



You can get insurance for anything you like, really. Someone somewhere will
cover anything. The fact that it's less likely for a given event to occur
in your area only means it's even easier to get coverage, even though it
may not be on your local broker's "menu".

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:01:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>I thinnk so. Our Wx has been insane this winter. OTOH I have been
>>getting very little x-wind practice in the las few years..
>
> Come to Midland. Most days 18/36 and 06/24 do anything except line up
> with the winds at 3BS. Hurry though, were getting AWOS and the airport
> identifier is going to change.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>

What's the pavement strength like?


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:31:25 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
>>> record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
>>> contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
>>> question becomes, what are the consequences of that?
>>
>> My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.
>
>I live at about 1500' elevation on a mountain in PA and I'm hoping for
>waterfront property by the time I retire! :-)

Unfortunately you'll be sharing it with millions of immigrants from
NYC, Washington DC, Philadelphia, .
Interesting program the other night. Scientist said they've been
forced to drastically understate things if they expect to keep their
funding. Just the Greenland ice sheets could give 3 to 5 feet.
According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
help.<:-))
>
Roger (K8RI)

>Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
> one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
> help.<:-))

Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
was it?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

<snip>
>Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
>The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do what
>you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does have the
>best info that several days worth of research on my behalf could produce.
>
>Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.
>
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

You can spend a longggg time on that page, or group of pages. <:-))
"Real Climate" has put together some of the best information available
in one spot. They also do a very good job of debunking a number of
"junk science" arguments.


>
>This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy of
>the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be happy
>about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than cars")

The "Tundra" which is thawing, contains many times the amount of
methane contained in the atmosphere, let alone the amount released by
cows/farming/society. I saw a film clip on a National Geographic show
this past week that showed a lake in Alaska literally bubbling
Methane. They captured some and lit it off

The permafrost line has moved North over 300 miles in the last couple
decades IIRC. Here in Central Michigan Winters are officially
(according to the state Department of Natural Resources, or what ever
they call it now) between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50
years ago. Summers are now twice as long. We get two weeks instead of
one and Black Fly season runs June to September. 20 to 30 years ago we
didn't have black flies. OT OH that has to do with the water being
cleaner, rather than warmer.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>
>Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:37:07 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>John Mazor wrote:
>
>> So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the greenhouse gas CO2. From
>> one of the websites you so blithely blew off:
>>
>> "The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since
>> pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide
>> Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
>> atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning
>> of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating
>> electricity."
>
>And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
>point by point. :-)
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

Just follow the link below. It says almost all.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

The ocean is a natural CO2 sink. It is absorbing a lot of CO2, but as
it warms it absorbs less. That CO2 is converted into phosphates and
eventually ends up as lime. This is why, historically over the past
few hundred thousand years, the temperature rise has led the CO2 rise.
Now the CO2 rise is leading. However it's likely the oceans will warm
enough to let the frozen Methane Hydrate evaporate (it goes from solid
to gas with no liquid intermediate stage) The continental shelves and
deep ocean contain enough of the stuff to make the CO2 problem look
miniscule in comparison and is believed to have been the ultimate
cause of the "Permian extinction". Methane is a far more effective
greenhouse gas than CO2.

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:39:51 -0600, Grumman-581
> wrote:

>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
>> around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
>> scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
>> least if they're supposed to be good ones.
>
>Let's also bring back the requirement to own land in order to vote...
>That should get rid of most of those leftist Democrats in the northeast...

I really, really, REALLY hate to say this, but, you missed two very
important requirements to vote in early America. Male, property
owner, AND in good standing with the "local" church. (IOW local church
member giving "your fair share")

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:53:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
>>The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do
>>what you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does
>>have the best info that several days worth of research on my behalf
>>could produce.
>>
>>Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.
>>
>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-
gassy
>>-argument/
>
> You can spend a longggg time on that page, or group of pages. <:-))
> "Real Climate" has put together some of the best information available
> in one spot. They also do a very good job of debunking a number of
> "junk science" arguments.
>


Yeah, I did spend a loooong time looking around befor ei was directed to
this. And, as you say, it debunked an awful lot of the junk arguments I
had heard.

>
>>
>>This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy
>>of the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be
>>happy about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than
>>cars")
>
> The "Tundra" which is thawing, contains many times the amount of
> methane contained in the atmosphere, let alone the amount released by
> cows/farming/society. I saw a film clip on a National Geographic show
> this past week that showed a lake in Alaska literally bubbling
> Methane. They captured some and lit it off


On rthe bright side, they'r elooking into harvesting it for fuel.

>
> The permafrost line has moved North over 300 miles in the last couple
> decades IIRC. Here in Central Michigan Winters are officially
> (according to the state Department of Natural Resources, or what ever
> they call it now) between 5 and 6 weeks shorter than they were 50
> years ago. Summers are now twice as long. We get two weeks instead of
> one and Black Fly season runs June to September. 20 to 30 years ago we
> didn't have black flies. OT OH that has to do with the water being
> cleaner, rather than warmer.


Well, I don't rememvber them at all in MI. I've seen them elsewhere, but
not there. And lving near Orchad lake I'd imagine you'd expect a few
bugs.


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:42:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:01:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I thinnk so. Our Wx has been insane this winter. OTOH I have been
>>>getting very little x-wind practice in the las few years..
>>
>> Come to Midland. Most days 18/36 and 06/24 do anything except line up
>> with the winds at 3BS. Hurry though, were getting AWOS and the airport
>> identifier is going to change.
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>
>What's the pavement strength like?

Strength AND length<:-)) The largest ever so far has been a Falcon
900. He set it on the numbers, Immediate reverse, and kept them on
until the engines started to stutter (no backfire). Not bad for a 3800
X 75 foot runway. <:-)) Airport operator was walking around like an
old cat ready to have kittens worried about the ramp strength. OTOH
after throttle up with the brakes on, he was off in less than half the
runway "AFTER burning all the green grass down to the ground between
the end of the runway and airport fence behind him" <:-))

IOW it's strong asphalt on about 8 feet of good bed, but not feet
thick concrete for heavies. MBS (11.3 SE on their 317 radial) doesn't
even qualify for 747s due to the placement of the runway lights for
engine clearance.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>
>Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:55:13 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> According to ice cores a major portion of the last warming took about
>> one *decade* and not hundreds of years and that was without our
>> help.<:-))
>
>Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
>was it?

As I recall it's still a mystery. It was nothing like what they were
expecting to find. Unfortunately some one pressed the erase button on
the DVR and I can't go back and look at it. It should be on again. It
was the National Geographic HD channel. Impressive in wide screen,
high definition. IIRC they had two, one hour programs back to back.

Interesting thing is most predictions are based on "things at present"
but the Greenland glaciers are rapidly accelerating their movement.
Like the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica they could decide to let go.
The big difference? The Ross ice shelf was already floating, but even
at their fastest it should take the glaciers at least a few years to
slide off the land mass

With the polar albedo(sp?) changin so rapidly the temperature changes
within and near the Artic Circle are much greater (and faster) than
the rest of the world is seeing..

Roger (K8RI)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
>> understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools.
>> Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support
>> our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no
>> understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between
>> science and religion will only do further harm to this country than
>> the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done.
>> Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific
>> beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the
>> downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us.
>
> Well put.
>
> Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential
> candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable
> political platform. My preliminary research shows that this
> candidate does not yet exist.
>
Or, we just don't know who it is because the issue isn't being covered by
the media, which instead focuses on the horse race.

There is a move afoot by several science groups and the two physicists in
Congress to have a "science debate", where we would ferret out the
candidates' position.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php

Become aware, get involved.

Neil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>
>>What's the pavement strength like?
>
> Strength AND length<:-))


Nah, lenght is OK. Req for landing is only 2800' ( no reverse) and we
can get off light with flap 15 no prob. Actually, because of the bogies,
we'd probably be OK for pavement strength too! Mid width for doing a 180
is 125 feet, I think. It hasn't been an issue yet!

> The largest ever so far has been a Falcon
> 900. He set it on the numbers, Immediate reverse, and kept them on
> until the engines started to stutter (no backfire).


They won't backfire ( actually the term is compressor stall) form
reverse use. in some airplanes you can even back the airplane up using
it. Not a good idea cause of FOD.

Not bad for a 3800
> X 75 foot runway. <:-)) Airport operator was walking around like an
> old cat ready to have kittens worried about the ramp strength. OTOH
> after throttle up with the brakes on, he was off in less than half the
> runway "AFTER burning all the green grass down to the ground between
> the end of the runway and airport fence behind him" <:-))
>
> IOW it's strong asphalt on about 8 feet of good bed, but not feet
> thick concrete for heavies. MBS (11.3 SE on their 317 radial) doesn't
> even qualify for 747s due to the placement of the runway lights for
> engine clearance.



Well, I think the runway lights would be the least of thier problems!
The Falcon 900 should have been OK> I'm just guessing, but empty they
are probably about 15,000 lbs and loaded up probably about twice that.
Maybe a bit more.
They have double wheels and can probably land on just about any runway
dependin on how big a footprint the tires have.
The Russians Yak 40 "Falknoski" has a single fat tire and is good for
landing on grass!


Bertie


>

[Thomas Borchert]

Marissa,

> By following your position, we could also argue that being anti-religious
> is a religion in its own right.
>

No, one could not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[dVaridel]

"Neil Gould" wrote
> Recently, dVaridel posted:
>> If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
>> that they have "The Answer" (tm).
>>
> According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim.

No, thrown at me when I adopt a "Creationist" (for lack of a better term)
position in a discussion. The "Not-Creationists" (admittedly not
"Scientists" either) try to tell me that science can supply answers to the
big questions - like where did we come from etc..

The point I was trying to make a few posts back was that I like the
Scientist as an enquiring mind approach.


> I happen to like Warriors, as I'm not in much of a hurry. Our club is
> acquiring a couple of Cirrus SR-22s, and I'm not all that interested in
> them. We also have a few (Bo)nanzas (to answer another poster's question
> about "Bo"), and I have yet to go up in those either.

Yeah, I like my Warrior too ...... thought they seem to have shrunk in the
25 years since I first "graduated" to one (from C150/152's) :-)


Cheers,

David

--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> >Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
> >was it?
>
> As I recall it's still a mystery. It was nothing like what they were
> expecting to find. Unfortunately some one pressed the erase button on
> the DVR and I can't go back and look at it. It should be on again. It
> was the National Geographic HD channel. Impressive in wide screen,
> high definition. IIRC they had two, one hour programs back to back.

Thanks... I'm still on analog cable as I don't watch enough TV to
"justify" switching to HD or even digital.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, dVaridel > posted:

> "Neil Gould" wrote
>> Recently, dVaridel posted:
>>> If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
>>> that they have "The Answer" (tm).
>>>
>> According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim.
>
> No, thrown at me when I adopt a "Creationist" (for lack of a better
> term) position in a discussion. The "Not-Creationists" (admittedly
> not "Scientists" either) try to tell me that science can supply
> answers to the big questions - like where did we come from etc..
>
A lot depends on what you (or they) meant by "...come from..." For
example, we "come from" the same material that makes up the rest of the
known universe, and that can be demonstrated scientifically. On the other
hand, what makes us "we" in the sense of our consciousness is not
currently testable, so while it may be a curiosity that interests some
scientists, I know of none that would claim to have the answer to that
"big question".

> The point I was trying to make a few posts back was that I like the
> Scientist as an enquiring mind approach.
>
That is the only approach consistent with the scientific method.

Regards,

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:18:13 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote in
>:

>Mitt Romney, practicing Mormon, who said he wishes to banish atheists from the
>country.

It sounds like Willard is a bigot.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "Neil Gould" wrote
>> Recently, dVaridel posted:
>>> If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove
>>> that they have "The Answer" (tm).
>>>
>> According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim.
>
> No, thrown at me when I adopt a "Creationist" (for lack of a better
> term) position in a discussion. The "Not-Creationists" (admittedly
> not "Scientists" either) try to tell me that science can supply
> answers to the big questions - like where did we come from etc..


KIf they're not sicentists, then what's your beef?

>
> The point I was trying to make a few posts back was that I like the
> Scientist as an enquiring mind approach.
>


You are like a scinetist or you like the scientific aproach?


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Slug wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>> because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the
>> beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science.
>>
>
> Throughout the entire Clinton presidency Hillary's husband waved a
> succession of his girlfriends in front of her face. Did she ever cry in
> public? Not that I can remember. But let someone ask her how a campaign
> is affecting her and here come the tears. Don't you ladies realize how
> phony she is?

During his Presidency, HA! He was virtually a monk during his
presidency. During his Governorship the crack of dawn wasn't even safe.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>Jim Logajan wrote:
> It appears that
>Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one occasion.

When he has time for it.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:48:01 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> >Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
>> >was it?
>>
>> As I recall it's still a mystery. It was nothing like what they were
>> expecting to find. Unfortunately some one pressed the erase button on
>> the DVR and I can't go back and look at it. It should be on again. It
>> was the National Geographic HD channel. Impressive in wide screen,
>> high definition. IIRC they had two, one hour programs back to back.
>
>Thanks... I'm still on analog cable as I don't watch enough TV to
>"justify" switching to HD or even digital.

Check BPS listings as those programs also show up there from time to
time.

Don't forget (if you watch off the air stations in the US) that analog
is going away Feb. 17, 2009. Coupons for Digital to analog converters
are available at https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx although the
boxes are not likely to be available before April of this year (and
the coupons are only good for 90 days)

Roger (K8RI)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:7e37b2db510f4@uwe...
> >Jim Logajan wrote:
>> It appears that
>>Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one occasion.
>
> When he has time for it.
>

Traded his old analog watch for a digital?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote:

> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
> point by point. :-)
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

This is not news. What's your point?


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>
>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
>> point by point. :-)
>>
>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>
>
> What's to refute?
>
> "The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
> natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
> of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
> century. But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
> measurements* seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the
> CO2. "
>
> This is not news. What's your point?

It's not news? Algore is making millions spouting the opposite.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:


> Check BPS listings as those programs also show up there from time to
> time.

thanks
>
> Don't forget (if you watch off the air stations in the US) that analog
> is going away Feb. 17, 2009. Coupons for Digital to analog converters
> are available at https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx although the
> boxes are not likely to be available before April of this year (and
> the coupons are only good for 90 days)

yep - on it. I haven't decided exactly what to do yet... and of course
RCN isn't saying how much longer they will continue analog cable.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:44:41 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>
>> Check BPS listings as those programs also show up there from time to
>> time.
>
>thanks
>>
>> Don't forget (if you watch off the air stations in the US) that analog
>> is going away Feb. 17, 2009. Coupons for Digital to analog converters
>> are available at https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx although the
>> boxes are not likely to be available before April of this year (and
>> the coupons are only good for 90 days)
>
>yep - on it. I haven't decided exactly what to do yet... and of course
>RCN isn't saying how much longer they will continue analog cable.

Depending on what you watch, the new HD sets have great pictures on
National Geographic, and other documentaries. Although not cheap, I
could purchase a 50" LCD for about what my folks paid for one of the
early color sets, and get a 40" (all we have room for) for one whale
of a lot less. The new ones have way higher definition than this 22"
wide screen monitor for my computer I purchased well less than a year
ago. Come to think of it, that old color console TV had a smaller
screen than this monitor too. And we thought it was big, which it was
back then. Course I had more hair, a LOT more hair back then too.
<:-)) <sigh>

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>
>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
>> point by point. :-)
>>
>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>
>
>What's to refute?
>
>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase of
>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this century.
>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core measurements*
>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
leading the temp.
>
>This is not news. What's your point?

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:02:31 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:48:01 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>>
>>> >Did the program indicate the cause the last warming? If so, what
>>> >was it?
>>>
>>> As I recall it's still a mystery. It was nothing like what they were
>>> expecting to find. Unfortunately some one pressed the erase button on
>>> the DVR and I can't go back and look at it. It should be on again. It
>>> was the National Geographic HD channel. Impressive in wide screen,
>>> high definition. IIRC they had two, one hour programs back to back.
>>
>>Thanks... I'm still on analog cable as I don't watch enough TV to
>>"justify" switching to HD or even digital.
>
>Check BPS listings as those programs also show up there from time to
>time.

Errrr...make that PBS, but I think you caught what I meant.

Roger
>
>Don't forget (if you watch off the air stations in the US) that analog
>is going away Feb. 17, 2009. Coupons for Digital to analog converters
>are available at https://www.dtv2009.gov/ApplyCoupon.aspx although the
>boxes are not likely to be available before April of this year (and
>the coupons are only good for 90 days)
>
>Roger (K8RI)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>
>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
>>> point by point. :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>
>>
>>What's to refute?
>>
>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
>>of
>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>century.
>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>measurements*
>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>
> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
> leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>> following point by point. :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>What's to refute?
>>>
>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
>>>increase of
>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>century.
>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>measurements*
>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>
>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>> leading the temp.
>
> No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>
>
>
>

A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
through space, isn't it?

Bertie

[dVaridel]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
> "dVaridel" wrote in
> KIf they're not sicentists, then what's your beef?

No beef, just adding my 2c (US$0.0178).


>> The point I was trying to make a few posts back was that I like the
>> Scientist as an enquiring mind approach.
>
> You are like a scinetist or you like the scientific aproach?

For the record I am like a salesman, however, I like the scientific
approach.


David

--
We had a quicksand box in our backyard. I was an only child, eventually.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>> following point by point. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>
>>>> What's to refute?
>>>>
>>>> "The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>> that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
>>>> increase of
>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>> century.
>>>> But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>> measurements*
>>>> seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>>> leading the temp.
>> No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>
>
> A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
> through space, isn't it?

"I wonder if it will be friends with me?"

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the following
>>>> point by point. :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>What's to refute?
>>>
>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that
>>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
>>>of
>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>century.
>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>measurements*
>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>
>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>> leading the temp.
>
>No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
is not due to nature.

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

Roger

>
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>> following point by point. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>
>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>>that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
>>>>increase of
>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>>century.
>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>measurements*
>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>
>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>>> leading the temp.
>>
>> No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
>through space, isn't it?

Or who kicked the ladder our from under you while dangeling from the
rope.

Roger
>
>Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>> following
>>>>> point by point. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>
>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>>that
>>>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
>>>>of
>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>>century.
>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>measurements*
>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>
>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>>> leading the temp.
>>
>>No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>
> I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
> leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
> the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
> is not due to nature.

No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm
>
> If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
> that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
> the CO2 come from?
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
>
I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.
RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the overt fraud and charlatan
Michael Mann.

Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

[John Godwin]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe
> NationalEnquirer. RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the
> overt fraud and charlatan Michael Mann.
>
.... and Betsy Ensley.

--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:478ea27e$0$27493$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>>> following point by point. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> What's to refute?
>>>>>
>>>>> "The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
shows
>>>>> that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for
the
>>>>> increase of
>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
this
>>>>> century.
>>>>> But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>> measurements*
>>>>> seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
CO2
>>>> leading the temp.
>>> No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>>
>>
>> A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
>> through space, isn't it?
>
> "I wonder if it will be friends with me?"


Funny you should say that.. I just saw that episode last night.

Sppoky!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:
>>
>>>
>>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>>> following point by point. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>>
>>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
shows
>>>>>that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for
the
>>>>>increase of
>>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
this
>>>>>century.
>>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>>measurements*
>>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>>
>>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
CO2
>>>> leading the temp.
>>>
>>> No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A bit lke arguing how big the SPLAT is going to be as you're falling
>>through space, isn't it?
>
> Or who kicked the ladder our from under you while dangeling from the
> rope.
>

Better.

Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> point by point. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>>
>>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>>>that
>>>>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase
>>>>>of
>>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>>>century.
>>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>>measurements*
>>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>>
>>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>>>> leading the temp.
>>>
>>>No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>
>> I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
>> leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
>> the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
>> is not due to nature.
>
>No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm
>>
>> If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
>> that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
>> the CO2 come from?
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
>>
>I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.

Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. <:-)) Neither side
can understand the other.<:-))

Roger (K8RI)

>RC, in case you missed it, is the home of the overt fraud and charlatan
>Michael Mann.
>
>Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.
>
>

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:


> Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.

Haw!

That's rich, coming from someone who fell for crackpot Prof. Van Zandt's
"proof" that humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up.

Did you think no one would remember?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
>
>
>> Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.
>
> Haw!
>
> That's rich, coming from someone who fell for crackpot Prof. Van Zandt's
> "proof" that humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up.
>
> Did you think no one would remember?

Oh...as "refuted" by realclimate?

I remember your "refutation".

And he never said humanity was causing it to go up...he said it was not even
a spit in the ocean.

Why don't you trying learning to comprehend rather than just barf back?

I remember, too, that your were quite taken by Michael Mann's glaring fraud.

Get a clue.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>> point by point. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
>>>>>>increase
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this
>>>>>>century.
>>>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>>>measurements*
>>>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>>>
>>>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the CO2
>>>>> leading the temp.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>>
>>> I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
>>> leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not seeing
>>> the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise in CO2 that
>>> is not due to nature.
>>
>>No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the 4000ppm
>>>
>>> If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will see
>>> that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where did
>>> the CO2 come from?
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
>>>
>>I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe NationalEnquirer.
>
> Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. <:-)) Neither side
> can understand the other.<:-))

At least Daly's work is backed by data that has NOT been refuted or found to
be fraudulent.

We're finding out that the greenies are unmitigated liars.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>> point by point. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's to refute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
>>>>>>>shows that
>>>>>>>natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
>>>>>>>increase
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
>>>>>>>this century.
>>>>>>>But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
>>>>>>>measurements*
>>>>>>>seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
>>>>>> CO2 leading the temp.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.
>>>>
>>>> I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
>>>> leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not
>>>> seeing the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise
>>>> in CO2 that is not due to nature.
>>>
>>>No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the
>>>4000ppm
>>>>
>>>> If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will
>>>> see that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where
>>>> did the CO2 come from?
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-
th
>>>> e-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
>>>>
>>>I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe
>>>NationalEnquirer.
>>
>> Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. <:-)) Neither side
>> can understand the other.<:-))
>
> At least Daly's work is backed by data that has NOT been refuted or
> found to be fraudulent.
>
> We're finding out that the greenies are unmitigated liars.
>

jesus wept.


Bertie
>
>

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
in message ...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Gullibility doesn't suit someone your age.
>>
>> Haw!
>>
>> That's rich, coming from someone who fell for crackpot Prof. Van Zandt's
>> "proof" that humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up.
>>
>> Did you think no one would remember?
>
> Oh...as "refuted" by realclimate?

No; by me and Logajan.

You remember him, don't you?

The guy you lied about kill-filing.

And got caught.

> I remember your "refutation".

Your memory is either failing or selective, Matt.

The math was wrong. The Professor mixed up carbon and carbon dioxide. This
was pointed out to you. You ran away.

>
>
> And he never said humanity was causing it to go up...he said it was not
> even a spit in the ocean.

I guess you meant to write "humanity *wasn't* causing it to go up."

Bull****.

That's exactly what he said.

And you fell for it because you'll fall for any crackpot denier BS you come
across.

Here's what the ol' perfesser concluded:


8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.


>
> Why don't you trying learning to comprehend rather than just barf back?

Haw-haw! Yer killin' me, Matt.

You want to give *me* advice about not barfing back?

After you regurgitated the ol' perfesser's BS in multiple places on usenet
without ever noticing it was based on an elementary error?

Tee-hee. You're a riot.

>
> I remember, too, that your were quite taken by Michael Mann's glaring
> fraud.
>
> Get a clue.

Still clinging to the ol' hockey stick straw, aren't you, Matt?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Here's a clue or two for *you*:

In 2006 Congress mandated an investigation of Mann, et al.'s work by the
NRC. With a few reservations, the NRC's report endorsed the findings of
Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999.

http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics

They certainly didn't find any fraud. Your calling Mann one is a lie.

And that was a long time ago. All subsequent proxy reconstructions
published by other scientists have produced graphs shaped like --guess
what?-- hockey sticks:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Try to keep up.

Or don't; I don't care.

But don't think you can post your usual crap in here and not get called on
it.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM