Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:01:53 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: =A0=A0It's also conceivable that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can certainly affect surface temperature here. It's not conceivable (its definite), it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer. I'm not talking about the ozone layer, I'm talking about the sun's actual energy output. Check this out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html This is called global warming. Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done. No one ever denied that global warming is occurring. The point of contention is how much of it can truly be definitively attributed to man's actions. Some light reading for you to bring you up to speed: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/ Your work on this topic is just beginning....... Dave "Sandbagger" The intellicast links aren't compatible with webtv. Here are a few for you, concerning your errors. Note the date on my references. They are last word on the subject. Of course, if you have data confirmed since by a verifiable source, feel free to post it.... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...may20,1,60065= 96.story?ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue =A0 THE WORLD As Climate Shifts, Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing Increased snowfall on the central icecap partly offsets effects of melting glaciers, researchers say. By Robert Lee Hotz, Times Staff Writer As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday. The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet =97 a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring =97 increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed. "It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England. In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said. "As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall." The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by the journal Science. Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities, is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands and some areas of Antarctica. Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion tons of water a year. The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise by a fraction of that =97 about 0.12 millimeter a year =97 the researchers reported. All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said. "It is the only large body of ice absorbing sea level rise, not contributing to it," said Curt H. Davis, a radar mapping expert at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who led the research team. The researchers based their conclusions on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites from June 1992 to May 2003. They determined that the icecap appeared to be thickening at the rate of 1.8 centimeters every year. The ice is thinning in West Antarctica and other regions of the continent. "The changes in the ice look like those expected for a warming world," said glaciologist Richard Alley at Pennsylvania State University. "The new result in no way disproves global warming; if anything, the new result supports global warming." _ One more for the road.... http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641= 0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a= uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...b328640589641= 0dab46b4c26c9fe&did=3D842083261&FMT=3DFT&FMTS=3DFT &date=3DMay+19%2C+2005&a= uthor=3D&printformat=3D&desc=3DReport%3A+Iraq+asse ssment+bleaker Spin it again and tell us how Iraq is getting better, Dave. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. ... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? Link please. That statement in itself is meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply means that we're a little behind schedule. I suppose you consider the establishment of an independent Iraqi government as not an important achievement? .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Gunatanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. This isn't about Bush, this is about a trusted news organization which recklessly printed a story which turned out to be bogus, which resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and incited further anti-U.S. behavior. Which begs the question , who's side is Newsweek on? They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. Gee, that one never made the front page. Must have been one of Clinton's leftovers. That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with it. Chances are you would have cheated. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. I did not offer to provide specific details. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me (And getting most of it wrong in the process). The facts betray you. has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. I'm not the one who feels the need to continually convince myself of the existence of a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't really exist. Deal? Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. ... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? The Pentagon. Link please. Already posted it once. That statement in itself is meaningless. "Not fairing well" could simply means that we're a little behind schedule. I suppose you consider the establishment of an independent Iraqi government as not an important achievement? Ask the Pentagon. .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply, protection, and gear for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence. Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but reactive lipeservice. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No one said it was, but it is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge regarding the position of president. _ Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. .A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not .the president today. Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings and hatred for him for other reasons? Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry. Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is undertaking. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. =A0=A0When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken" the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication of responsibility. and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed, he failed to stop the proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes. Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it. The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position evaporates. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party acknowledged global warming and you didn't. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. This isn't about Bush, Yea,,right,,I forgot who I was talking to for a second. this is about a trusted news organization which recklessly printed a story which turned out to be bogus, Sort of like the fabricated press releases from what is to be a trusted organization (WH) to do whta is best for the people, but who recklessly fabricated not one, not two, not three, but months and months worth of phoney bull**** and deliberately misrepresented the fluff as authentic news press releases. which resulted in the deaths of 17 people, and incited further anti-U.S. behavior. Not as much as the fabricated war Bush employed. Which begs the question , who's side is Newsweek on? They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. Gee, that one never made the front page. Sure it did, Dave,,,you just are uninformed regrading everything these days. Must have been one of Clinton's leftovers. That's why the mainstream news didn't fly with .it. Mainstream did fly with it. Missed it. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain. BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed. In fact, she used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife because of the shame you rained down upon yourself. It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime in" to all exchanges in order to express they care? Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure. But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. I did not offer to provide specific details. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your **** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it. Your constant excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : ) Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me I looked up nothing...you put it out there. In fact, you put it all out there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell so many lies, you can't keep them all straight. In fact, you initiated the personal game and were told many times to lay off the personal remarks. Now that you are getting your own game crammed down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you have demonstrated to the public. You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife. Deal with it, move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal created hell in which you wallow. (And getting most of it wrong in the process). Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your wife. The facts betray you. No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years. Meanwhile, the game you initiated has come full circel and slapped you in your head. has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. I'm not the one who feels the need to continually convince myself of the existence of a mythical "majority" who's support doesn't really exist. That's exactly what you do each time you claim a superior morality and adherence to religion. Deal? Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used overpriced POS. Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your ignorance. Dave "Sandbagger" n3cvj |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:17:38 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:40:52 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget, Bush never promised to balance the budget at this time. That's to come in the future. .. the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought". According to whom? The Pentagon. Link please. Already posted it once. When? And don't just say "the pentagon", post a complete link to the "news" source from which you base your biased claims. ....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Blaming anyone but Bush for over three years of inadequate supply, protection, and gear for our troops shows exactly how well you comprehend your government. And you would be equally ignorant to ignore the years of neglect that our military suffered at the hands of Clinton, who had no great love for it. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Placing unprepared troops and others in battle is not standing up, it is a failure and illustration of the president's strategy and incompetence. Ignoring Iran, Dharfur, and N Korea is not standing up. Who says we're ignoring it? All in good time. We don't have unlimited military resources. Unless, of course, you want the draft brought back..... Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. Sort of like yourself in regards to radio law,,you do nothing that can remotely be considered proactive (standing up) and offer nothing but reactive lipeservice. Stay focused. This isn't about me, as much as you'd like it to be. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No one said it was You implied as much , but it is part of the president's job that he failed to manage. Cllaiming that if something isn't promised by the president, it's ok if he is derelict in ignoring his duties, confirms your lack of knowledge regarding the position of president. There are far more pressing issues than a balanced budget. Ridding the world of maniacal terrorists is a bit higher on the pecking list. _ Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. .A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not .the president today. Did Kerry bang Kimberly, or do you continuosly harbor unnatural feelings and hatred for him for other reasons? No, it's a simple matter of you wanting to pin every failing on Bush, when, if you truly understood how the government operates, you would not make such an ignorant, uninformed claim. Military budgets have to be approved by congress, a congress in which Kerry voted against (after he voted for) the necessary money to provide that equipment you feel we were glaringly lacking. Bush is cutting military funding and it has nthing to do with Kerry. He is merely doing the same things as many corporations. Making due with less. Unless, you want a large tax increase. Once again, you are not even aware of what your own party is undertaking. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. **When did I "blast" Clinton for closing military bases? You blasted Clinton and claimed he was seeking to dismantle and "weaken" the military through budget cuts. You have a **** poor memory, Dave. Not the same thing. Bush is not eliminating any crucial bases or programs. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but responsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth, and I place blame where the blame belongs, Except with the leader of the country...as I said, you seek abdication of responsibility. and that starts with those who seek to destroy this country out of a ideological hatred of our way of life. Wrong,,,it begins and ends with the president. The president didn't fly airplanes into the trade towers or the pentagon. The president didn't try to annex a neighboring country. The president didn't exterminate hundreds of thousands of his own people. The president didn't blow a hole in the USS Cole. The president didn't blow up embassies. The list goes on. I don't blame the one leader with the cajones to call it like it is and stand up to it. But's NOT standing up for anything...he's ignoring Dharfur, which is much worse bllodshed than Hussein EVER committed Dharfur does not threaten this country in any way. , he failed to stop the proliferation and spread of nukes, and N Korea is continuing to produce them,,three more nuke warheads by year's end with the rods they recently and publicly collected and announced that they are using them for nukes. The former soviet union has nukes. The Chinese have nukes. So what? Now if Osama Bin Laden had a few, I'd be concerned. Or if Saddam had been allowed to finish his nuke program, I'd be concerned. Of course, Iran has solidified several more nukes in the time Bush has been lording over the oil glut,,,on it goes, yet you know little of it. What oil glut? Do you not read the commodities page? The liberals, on the other hand, when the truth cleverly evades them, make up their own version of the truth to justify actions which would, in an earlier generation, be considered treason. Bush was the only one to flipflop on his reasons for war, yet when thse reasons are applied equally to hostile countries, his position evaporates. He has not flip flopped on any of his reasons. They remain the same as always. Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Guantanamo, not toilets. I'm really interested in how you would know that with any accuracy. Stay focused and try not to fall off track and delve into personal realms again, Davey. I know it in the same manner I knew your party acknowledged global warming and you didn't. Which is how exactly? And for the record, I never denied global warming, just questioned the amount of effect that humanity has truly had on it. The evidence is still inconclusive on this point, as I have provided in the links. BTW, port-a-potti's don't flush. All the more reason the story was suspect from the beginning. Yet you were ready to embrace it as another reason to throw a dagger at Bush. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? Ah, so you've decided to print the information without my permission eh? I knew you couldn't resist the urge. I don't need your permission to ask what is in the public domain. The why did you ask in the first place? BTW, you need to either upgrade or trash your "Spy" software (Or ask for a refund of that $9.95). THAT was my OLD address. Yet, you brokke FCC law by not providing it to the FCC. Are you retarded, or can you simply not read? You are mistaken about my current address. Your "Cyber detective" software is out of date. My current address IS the one on my FCC license. The one you have is the OLD one. Stony creek road was were I was born and raised and spent most of my CB career. I moved from there in 1999. You can verify this by going on QRZ and loading the 1993 version of the callbook, and then look at what address my call is listed with. I accept (once again) your apology. And again. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, Aparently what I think is very relevant, as you deny the truth and menstruate over it. I now have you in such a freakin' tizzy, you are denying your own wife's name when it has been confirmed. How has it been confirmed? Because YOU think it is? I am telling you, you are dead wrong about my wife's name. In fact, she used to reside on Gravers Road, but you go on denying she is your wife because of the shame you rained down upon yourself. I never even heard of Gravers road. Once again you are mistaken (We must be up to a dozen things you've been wrong about now). This is what happens when you play with cyperspy wannabe software for $9.95. It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. Name them. Google hypocrite and your name, and you will find those who taught you better. Nice dodge. But I drive a Ford. Once again, name the people who agree with your position and disagree with mine. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. Prove it. Post the names, posts and other references. Prove it. Other that you, Frank, and occasionally Landshark, who actually even gives enough of a crap about these jabs that we exchange, to even chime in? You are again under the mistaken and erroneous belief one must "chime in" to all exchanges in order to express they care? Well gee, how then are we supposed to know that they disagree? Did you buy Frank's crystal ball? Dude, you are so far out, you can never regain composure. I'm not the one who's suggesting that I can read minds in order to glean the opinions of people who do not post their opinions here. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. This is where your **** poor communication skill comes in to play. When one enters a topic in to a conversation, be prepared to substantiate it. Just like you gave us the names and addresses of all of your publishing gigs when you once claimed to be a "professional journalist"? If you are going to make the rules, you have to play by them too. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Your constant excuses and whining about not having to defend your claims portray you exactly how you are viewed.....by the majority : ) Like I said, you have not provided for one single piece of information you have provided here. Yet you expect others to do it. Hypocrisy. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life Yet it is you who is obsessively looking up personal info about me I looked up nothing...you put it out there. I put my old home address out there? I put the incorrect name of my wife out there? C'mon, you can do better. In fact, you put it all out there, you just are so inept and have such a **** poor memory and tell so many lies, you can't keep them all straight. When and where have I put any of the things that you've conjured out of thin air out there? In fact, you initiated the personal game No, I didn't, you did. and were told many times to lay off the personal remarks. While you continued to engage in the exact behavior yourself, either ignorant of, or indifferent to your apparent hypocrisy. Now that you are getting your own game crammed down your throat, you can only cry foul and lie,,,,but lying about your wife is an entirely new (at least when you do it publicly) concept you have demonstrated to the public. I have told no lies. You got suckered into paying some of your hard earned and short on supply cash to some company to get personal information about me, and much of it is wrong. But you'd rather believe that I'm lying than believe that you got taken. You have shamed your name, Dave and disgraced your wife. How? Deal with it, move on from it, and stop becoming personal with others and you will find you will stop hating life and blaming others for your personal created hell in which you wallow. The only hell is the one that you're stuck in and which you are desperately trying to use me in order to vindicate yourself from. (And getting most of it wrong in the process). Tell us again which parts are wrong, Dave,,,,I thoroughly enjoy watching you squirm over your past lies. Tell us again how Kimberly T is not your wife. She's not. That's NOT my wife's name. The address on my ham license is correct. And G.W. Bush will probably be remembered in history as one of America's greatest presidents, once he tames the barbarism in the middle east. The facts betray you. No,,,the facts confirm what I say. You're so ignorant in the ways of the world and law, you are beside yourself because -you- are unable to correctly ascertain the info that you have been begging me for years. I haven't begged you for anything. I am merely holding you up to the hypocrisy spotlight for demanding information from other people that you're not willing to give of yourself. Checkmate. Yep, that's my boat. No offers, yet, huh? Well, that's what happens when you purchase a used overpriced POS. I bought it brand new in 1996. And even 9 years later, it's still worth more than that scow you take people out fishing in order to earn the money to pay for your webTV subscription. Just because you overpaid doesn't mean others will subscribe to your ignorance. My boat is worth every penny that I'm asking for it, according to most surveys that I've researched. It's not like in Florida where the sun kills gelcoat in a year's time, and salt water exposure corrodes everything metallic. My boat is garage kept and as clean as the day I bought it. The summer season hasn't even hit yet. The weather isn't all that great right now. Sooner or later I expect some interested buyer activity. But I'm not in a hurry. If I don't sell it this year, there's always next. I just had an itch for a new boat, but I can wait. Next year's bonus added in might give me enough extra money to buy one without selling the old one right away....... Dave "Sandbagger" |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Hello, Dave
I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ... and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes". We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't work now. As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the religious folks? One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? Care to help Social Security? I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their intended has been divorced three times. I knew a guy (he passed away over 30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he. A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but few answers. Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I fear that once folks wake up and smell the coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we are in for a crash. 1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well. Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore? (hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:05:49 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote: Hello, Dave I've been really laughing over this thread. Yep, the deficit is *huge* ... and when folks wake up, the Democrats will get blamed for "raising taxes". If. in fact, they do "raise taxes", it would be their fault. I do not let a large deficit bother me. We've had large deficits before, and it didn't kill us We are in deep doo - doo here. Reaganomics didn't work then and it doesn't work now. I don't know about that. The end of a recession and the beginning of the biggest period of economic growth followed "Reaganomics". As to the marriage protection act that Bush was for, have we heard anything else about that, or was it to get a big reaction (along with votes) from the religious folks? That's a good question. One answer might be that there are more pressing issues right now (Run away filibusters, the war, getting an energy bill passed etc.). One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? According to the stats from: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers, but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. I worked for a manager who was on his third or fourth wife. Hmmmm .... I'm wondering if a woman (or man, for that matter) ever questions why their intended has been divorced three times. That would certainly send up a red flag for me. But, like they say, love is blind and it's hard to be rational when all of your blood is rushing to another organ in your body. I knew a guy (he passed away over 30 years ago) that was marrying his *fifth* wife! When he passed away, he was living with a girl friend a good 20 years younger than he. Then hopefully he died a happy man, although I would question his inability to remain faithful, and wonder if there weren't some "issues" affecting him. A lot of interesting questions come to mind with many of these threads, but few answers. That's the nature of debate, especially on subjects where answers are elusive and somewhat subjective. There would be no point is debating if the earth is round or whether the moon is made of green cheese, as we know the answers to those questions. Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. I fear that once folks wake up and smell the coffee, it will be too late. In fact, it may already be too late. If other countries stop "lending" us money and allowing our deficit to continue, we are in for a crash. That won't happen, because, like it or not, we live in a global economy, and if we "crash", we take the rest of the world with us. 1929 will look like a picnic. Many countries are fearing us. Not only for the "Rambo" style of Bush, but our deficit. If we crash, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the world as well. Exactly! I don't doubt for a minute that the pseudo-elitist socialist Europeans would pass up any opportunity to put the screws to us economically. But even they realize that if they do, they do so at their own peril. Why do you think OPEC doesn't peg their target to the US dollar anymore? By basing their target price on another currency, they get more U.S. dollars if the dollar is weak. OPEC knows that the dollar will rise again, and so will the value of their "investment". It's no surprise that oil prices have been falling as of late, which is coincident with a strengthening dollar. (hint: the dollar is falling and OPEC wants to make more. I read an article that Saudi Arabia wants to build an indoor skiing resort (talk about an air conditioning bill!) as well as an underwater hotel. Hey, if they have the money, more power to them. Although, that sort of materialism smacks against the core values of Wahabbism and radical Islam. Maybe we are affecting the middle east more than we thought.... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:09:44 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip No, the evidence is most certainly conclusive, as my links were dated of last week. Which is meaningless, as new evidence is always being obtained. There has been no definitive decision made with regard to man's affect on global warming, as there are too many unexplained variable. The antarctic ice pack increasing as the arctic ice pack melts is but one example. Which, ironically, provides proof of what you deny. See below. Once again, because you are unable to grasp the methods in which concentrations of certain gases can ascertain and pinpoint with extreme accuracy what is manmade and what is naturally occurring and released into the atmosphere, does not make it any less so. Gas is gas, there is no way to determine where it all came from once it is all mixed into a large swirl. Wrong. Ice provides carbon dioxide samples that are available for any given year. These samples are measured for C14 concentrations, fossil fuels having a much lower concentration of C14 than natural processes. The difference is quantified as the percentage of CO2 contributed by combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human sources is very accurately measured. snip Well, sure,,,Frank taugh you better regarding radio technical competency, Frank has some issues as well. He failed to recognize common industry terms, and discredited my explanations of common electronic circuits because they didn't fit within his own narrow "education". I recognized the "terms" as being poorly defined slang used by some who are without formal education in the field. And your explanations don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics. you called him names and took issue with his career. I was he who first started to degrade my education and career. I only kept the same level of civility. You may have matched my level of 'civility' (subject to debate), but you didn't even come close to my level of education and experience in the field of electronics. On the contrary, you tried to denounce me with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions. So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave? snip .... No one is perfect. If the best you can come up with is 2 mistakes that I made in 10 years worth of posting, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage. You may have -admitted- two of the many mistakes you have made in 10 years. IMO, that's a pretty -poor- percentage. Jim tried talking to you about foreign news sources, and you called him naive. If someone truly thinks that a foreign news service is any less likely to be affected by political bias, then they are naive. Yet you claim that domestic news services are heavily biased to the left. If that's true then foreign news services are -more- likely to be -less- biased, which makes -you- naive. snip Care is not a "simile" for "disagree". When you figure that out, you may ask such questions. You need to learn the difference between a 'simile' and a 'metaphor'. Didn't you ever watch that Danny DeVito movie where he played Kotter to a group of Army dimwits? Your word games and semantic shuffle will not allow you to wiggle out of that so easily. If one does not post their opinions, how do we know what they think on any topic? Several people have posted opinions that are contrary to your's. Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:13:35 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip One question begs for an answer: what is the divorce rate in this country? According to the stats from: http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls the percentage of divorced people is 9.6%. For some reason, Frank was unable (or unwilling) to read the columns and see the actual numbers, but if you believe the census bureau, that's what it is. For some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to accept the clear statement by the Census Bureau that they do not keep track of marraige and divorce rates. And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to explain how you derived the divorce rate from the table you cited. And for some reason, you were unable (or unwilling) to provide the marriage rate so that it could be compared to the divorce rate you 'divined' from the census data. Care to help Social Security? The best way to help it is to remove it, and divert all former SS withholdings into individual 401K accounts. Of course that penalizes those who have already given into the SS program for their entire working lives. So the transition has to be gradual so to be fair to everyone. So your solution is to simply eliminate Social Security? Hey, neat idea, but you can't "divert" what you don't have, and the Reps have tapped the SS trust fund so deep that there isn't anything to "divert". Bush's solution to SS is a "credit-card" retirement plan, which isn't any better. Maybe you two should get together and figure out what "promote the general Welfare" means. I'd suggest that once a couple divorces, they can no longer give nor receive Social Security benefits from another person (sole exception being to children). I've heard the divorce rate is close to 50%, but I honestly don't know. 9.6% according to the 2003 census. http://www.census.gov/population/www.../marr-div.html So what part of "The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take place in a given year" do you not understand? snip Nope, I'm not for gay marriage, but I question what is it that drives these big knee-jerk reactions. I usually apply Newton's law of action vs. reaction. Someone does something extreme and the opposite side responds with a equal and opposite reaction. There wouldn't be such an outpouring of opposition to gay marriage if there wasn't such a push to legalize it. "In a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. You need a reason to make something illegal." -- Donna Moss, "West Wing" ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:03:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip .....the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared. I suppose you've forgotten this now infamous quote: "I actually voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it". What do you think that 87 billion was for? Dave, you've been educated about this on more than one occasion; Kerry dropped his support after the Reps attached a bunch of pork-barrel spending amendments to the bill. Any responsible Senator would do the same thing, and many did. ,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. Yea sure. When you stand up for what is right, you're bound to take a few on the chin in the process. Those who refuse to stand up, out of fear of taking those few on the chin, are the ones to be very afraid of. So does that mean a fool is right because he stands up and takes "a few on the chin"? There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Never promised. No, but he -did- promise to bring the parties together and reduce partisan politics. He said he would be a "uniter, not a divider". So when do you suppose he's going to start implementing that policy? Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. A very valid reason why John F. Kerry is not the president today. Kerry isn't president for the same reason that Ivan the Terrible was still popular with many of his people after he crumpled over the chess board. snip You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, I seek the truth..... You seek reasons to validate your interpretations of the truth. Instead you should be seeking facts. Where are your facts, Dave? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner |