Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #331   Report Post  
Old June 3rd 05, 01:19 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.

No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including
volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results.


Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are
Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from
forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent
and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have
been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply
because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both
frequency and intensity.


That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.



No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product
of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon
monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes,
ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and
add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the
air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not
only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type
of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is
produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of
wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires
each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the
amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll,
the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much
vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends-
upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire,
etc, etc.


Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.


In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which
are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually
a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of
professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption
has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of
greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an
eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight
away from the surface.


Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate
is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the
climatic shifts.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.


I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.

I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.


When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into
consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate
of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic
change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human
activity.


Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and
when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2
concentrations.


Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.



You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of
tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of
the 11/22 year sunspot cycles.



Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output. But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".


And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.



Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?


I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.


I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.



Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your
proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub


Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work.

, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.


I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.


So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.


No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.

Second, every school is prevented by
law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a
student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold
the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied.


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?


Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you
smell......


Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact
remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your
education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine.


Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.



And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class.


I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line.


On the contrary, you tried to denounce me
with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions.

Which is exactly what you did.


Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or
logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs".


You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.



Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't
learned how to tell the difference between them.


No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the
difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the
political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of
speculative conclusion.


Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.



Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in
logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical
arguments


What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false
analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a
smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure.



. My offer to send you the Copi book still stands.


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.



So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?


On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next
to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda.......


I've provided fact after fact after fact.


No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.


Where?



Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where
to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable
skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library.


Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet
another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing
repertoire.





You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.


I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?



It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of
facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is
necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts
that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those
engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your
"tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your
"engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that
contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA.


Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule. And posting
names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of
reference.




.... 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.


I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong.



Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.


No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to
political ideologies.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
  #332   Report Post  
Old June 6th 05, 03:35 AM
Real CBer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So is the same dog biting your ass!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are playing

you
all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you?
A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight...

Regards,
John




  #333   Report Post  
Old June 6th 05, 05:33 AM
John Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default

.... sounds like you better becareful, if that same dog bit you--he'd be
sure to hit your A$$ dead on--seeing as how you are all A$$...

Warmest regards,
John

"Real CBer" wrote in message
...
So is the same dog biting your ass!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Anyone know any of these guys? Is it just possible the hams are
playing

you
all for fools, planting rumors to titillate you?
A dog chasing its own tail is a funny sight...

Regards,
John






  #336   Report Post  
Old June 6th 05, 08:56 PM
mopathetic didn't camp at Dayton! CHICKEN BOY!
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ahhh, mopathetic got a new lover to play with between keydowns.

  #337   Report Post  
Old June 6th 05, 08:57 PM
mopathetic didn't camp at Dayton! CHICKEN BOY!
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When accused of doing the nasty with large birds, mopathetic said....


"That's right! Have a gander.."

  #338   Report Post  
Old June 7th 05, 03:35 PM
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:19:59 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:44:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 07:54:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:32:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.

No they are not. Since CO2 can come from a variety of places including
volcanos, and large forest fires any of which can skew those results.


Wrong. Volcanos give off very little CO2 -- most of the gasses are
Hydrogen Sulfide and oxides of Sulfer. And the Carbon Dioxide from
forest fires is easily calculated. In fact, forest fires (both recent
and ancient) are studied for their impact on the environment and have
been found to cause very little variation in CO2 concentration simply
because they occur every year, and are actually -decreasing- in both
frequency and intensity.

That's hard to quantify, for years before accurate data was routinely
taken. Your only guessing at that point. There's only so much you can
see in ice cores and soil layers. Most of what you see there is
suggestive, but not conclusive.



No, it's not hard to quantify. Carbon dioxide is not the only product
of wood combustion. The gasses contain various quantities of carbon
monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons, as well as tars, acids, aldehydes,
ketones, and other chemicals that make good preservatives for meat and
add such a unique flavor to a BBQ. And that's just what goes into the
air; the residue left on the ground is wood ash, and that ash can not
only be easily identified but actually analyzed to determine what type
of wood was burned. We also know how much carbon dioxide and ash is
produced from the burning of a given quantity of any specific type of
wood, the average number and size of naturally occuring forest fires
each year, the extent those fires will burn if left unchecked, the
amount of growth that typically occurs before fire takes it's toll,
the areas and climates that are more likely to have fires, how much
vegetation survives a fire, how much vegetation actually -depends-
upon fire for regeneration, the rate of reforestation after a fire,
etc, etc.


Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.



So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that
absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability".
Yet another flip-flop.


In comparison, volcanos spew very few and very specific gasses, which
are usually compounds of sulphur, not carbon. Volcanic ash is actually
a mineral that's easily identified. And contrary to your statement of
professed ignorance on this topic, the effect of a volcanic eruption
has a climatic impact that is totally -opposite- to the effect of
greenhouse gasses -- the global temperature actually -drops- after an
eruption because the ash suspended in the atmosphere reflects sunlight
away from the surface.


Yes, that true, but the effect of those volcanos on the total climate
is significant, and can disrupt the otherwise cyclic nature of the
climatic shifts.



But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The
current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a
century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole
while climbing a mountain pass.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.


I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.



What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from?
Not volcanos, that's for sure......

Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to
believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that
the global temperature is rising, and that we are the cause. The only
disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on
our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or
"climate change".


I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.



Post them if you want.


When the apparent variation in the sun's energy output is taken into
consideration, it becomes very difficult to determine the exact rate
of global warming and how much of it is part of the cyclic climatic
change and how much of it is caused strictly as a result of human
activity.


Wrong. Solar variations can be determined from tree ring growth, and
when compared to ice samples they can be differentiated from CO2
concentrations.

Tree ring growth can be affected by a number of factors, besides solar
output. Without accounting for and removing those other variables, a
true tracking of solar output cannot be accurately ascertained.



You're barking up the wrong tree once again, Dave; it was the study of
tree ring growth that led to the discovery of the climatic effects of
the 11/22 year sunspot cycles.



Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output.



Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes,
but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise.


But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.



A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's
effects, and usually only for a cycle or two.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.



Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?


I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.



Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.


I told you before, you aren't worthy of knowing. I have no intention
of revealing any of the secondary education sources (and there have
been a few) that I have attended over the years. If you want to think
that I'm hiding something, then so be it. I know the truth and so does
my paycheck, and that's all that matters in the grand scheme of
things.



Yet you want me and others to believe your claims. Well then, if your
proof consists of your paycheck then post a scan of your pay stub


Yea, like I'm going to reveal where I work.



Then don't. Black out the name of your employer.


, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.


I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?



See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.


So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.


No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.



Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right? Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?


Second, every school is prevented by
law from releasing any personal information beyond the fact that a
student attended and graduated. IOW, you have no reason to withhold
the name of your school -- unless, of course, you lied.


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?



How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't. You are just making more excuses.


Frank, like my mother once said: Self praise stinks, and boy do you
smell......


Probably because I've been busy working on my garage. But the fact
remains that, no matter how you would like to believe otherwise, your
education and experience in the field doesn't measure up to mine.

Says you, a guy who tends bar, and who's next big career move is a
lawn care business. Yep, that's some education you have there Frankie.



And my education continues. Your's stalled in high-school shop class.


I learn something every day. And I APPLY it to the bottom line.


On the contrary, you tried to denounce me
with nothing but ignorance, generalizations and subjective opinions.

Which is exactly what you did.


Wrong. I provided facts and logic. You choose to ignore any facts or
logic that isn't consistent with your "core beliefs".

You have yet to provide a single unbiased "fact". Your "facts" are
simply conclusions reached by other equally opinionated, and agenda
driven people, who are making up these conclusions to try to explain
certain facts (according to their spin of course). But these are
hardly the only explanation.



Facts are not biased, Dave. Opinions are biased. You still haven't
learned how to tell the difference between them.


No, I just illustrated the difference. It is you who don't know the
difference, since most of your so-called "facts" especially in the
political arena, are really nuggets of fact wrapped in a layer of
speculative conclusion.



I told you a long time ago that you need to throw away the wrapping
and focus on those "nuggets of fact". Instead, you throw away the
facts just because you don't like the wrapping. That's your fault, not
mine.


Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.



Despite your amateurish application of your internet-education in
logic, you have yet to find a single fallacy in any of my logical
arguments


What? You last set was full of fallacies. Your favorites are false
analogies, denying the antecedent, and argumentum infinitum, with a
smattering of straw man arguments thrown in for good measure.



Never used anything of the sort, and I invite you to post any argument
where you think such a fallacy was used by me.


. My offer to send you the Copi book still stands.


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.



Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.
Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.


So once again I ask: Where are your facts, Dave?

On the opposite side of the coin from yours Frank.


Where are yours? Oh that's right, they're on that website right next
to the one with all the left wing anti-war propaganda.......


I've provided fact after fact after fact.

No you haven't. You provided assumption, after conclusion, after
opinion.

All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so.

Where?



Since you are so poorly educated that you don't even know how or where
to verify a fact, I would suggest you start learning this valuable
skill by pestering the good folks at your local public library.


Translation: I cannot provide a specific example, so I will invoke yet
another logical fallacy "Ad hominem" , to add to the growing
repertoire.



I don't know if there is a fallacy that is specifically named for
ignoring previously referenced sources, but if there isn't I'll call
it the "Dave Hall #1". That's to go along with the "Dave Hall #2"
fallacy which is best described as semantic backpedalling. And the
"Dave Hall #3", aka the "flip-flop frenzy" -- you are so desperate to
make your case that you forget your previous arguments and end up
contradicting yourself. I should make a list.


You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.

I provide what is necessary. Like the PA state laws which back up what
I stated about allowing at least 5 MPH over the speed limit in most
cases when clocking speeders. It was comical watching you spin and
twist, not much differently that Twistedhed, trying to find the
smallest exception to those rules, in a vain effort to try to disprove
the majority case. Talk about desperation.... Is your ego that
shallow?



It was more fun watching you play semantics upon the disclosure of
facts that contradicted your claim. You do indeed "provide what is
necessary" to support your conclusions; but you withhold any facts
that don't. For example, you are withholding the names of those
engineers that disagree with me; you are withholding the name of your
"tech school"; you are withholding the specific nature of your
"engineering" career; and you withheld the section of law that
contradicted your claim about speeding laws in PA.


Because the small exceptions to not invalidate the rule.



Not unless the exception is a -part- of the rule, dummy!


And posting
names of people is meaningless unless there is a common point of
reference.



More lame excuses.


.... 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.

I'm sure I made a few more, so what? Like I said, nobody's perfect.
But I am right more than I'm wrong.



Again, you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions.


No, history will show that you do. Especially when it comes to
political ideologies.



Well, -your- history of posting has shown that you have made far more
mistakes than you admit. And that is a fact, not an opinion.





----== 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 =----
  #339   Report Post  
Old June 7th 05, 03:35 PM
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:33:13 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:45:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:57:43 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to cough up
the marriage data so that it can be compared to the divorce data.

No one had asked previously.



I asked several times.


No, you asked about the divorce rate.



Play semantics all you want -- I said that half of all marriages end
up in divorce and you coughed up your statistic. Now you have to
explain how your statistic relates to my statement.


But since you have now, the percentage of
married people (Which included both spouse present and absent) is
about 53.5% from the same spreadsheet that you can't seem to read and
gather information from.



Excellent. Now, from that same spreadsheet, how many of those people
that are married have been previously married? And how many times?


Repeat marriages are not accounted for. So what? It is irrelevant.



No, it is -very- irrelevant. To prove (or disprove) that half of all
marriages end up in divorce then you must know how many marriages and
divorces occur in a given amount of time. You can't determine that
information from the static data you sourced from the Census bureau.
The data I provided was accurate, relevant, and, according to the
source of -your- data, came from -the- authoritative source on the
subject. My statement was correct.


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".

Care to substantiate that statement with some hard facts?


Like the way -you- back up -your- statements with hard facts? Sure....
It's true because I say it's true.

In other words, you don't have any. Just another regurgitated
"factoid" written by another skilled left wing propagandist.



If you assume that the annual Federal Budget Reports from both
Congress and the White House are written by skilled left wing
propagandists then I suppose you are correct.



The federal budget reports claimed that "republicans tapped social
security"?



Not in those exact words -- you need to have enough brains to figure
out that when the SS trust fund gets tapped for spending on Republican
bills during Republican administrations, it's usually done by the
Republicans.


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.

America was never meant to be a "Welfare state", despite the
objections of liberals who would socialize every program and service,
at the expense of the people who actually earn money.


If you could quote any liberal who said that America should be a
"welfare state" I might agree.

They refer to it by different names.



Which is something the conservatives -never- do, I'm sure.


Irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.



Nope, it sure doesn't. You can call it "global warming" or "climate
change", the "estate tax" or the "death tax", an "enemy combatant" or
a "prisoner of war"..... it's all the same difference. So what liberal
has stated that America should become a "welfare state" by that or any
other name?


Names like "living wage", "fair
share", "universal care". But it basically means the same thing.
Taking money from people who earn it, to give to people who don't.



LOL..... I think I'll let that statement stand on it's own 'merits'!


Yea, the truth. But you wisely chose not to comment on it as the only
thing you could do is defend the practices. That's sort of like
defending the IRS. Not a very popular position to be in.



First of all, what you refer to as a "living wage" is mighty important
to millions of voters who don't make a "living wage", mostly due to
irresponsible Republican economic plans (not to forget that 40% of
wage-earners don't make enough money to pay income taxes and therefore
didn't get Bush's 'tax rebate' that turned out to be nothing more than
a loan).

Second, "fair share" is in reference to fat-cats and corporations who
skip out of paying taxes through shelters, subsidies and a variety of
other carefully legislated loopholes.

And "universal care" is a simple concept that provides basic health
care service for anyone whether they can afford it or not -- more
specifically, the programs are targeted towards children whose parents
work two or three of Bush's new jobs and still can't pay the rent, let
alone health insurance for their children. It's also targeted towards
the increasing senior population who will be SOL when the SS trust
fund dries up in a few years (and after Bush shuts down drug imports
from Canada).

Care to make any more assinine comments about those subjects?


What part of 9.6% of the total population is divorced do YOU not
understand?


What percent of people are married, Dave?

See above. And before you jump the gun and say "Aha! if 53.4% of
people are married, that means that 46.4% are divorced, that's almost
half!", you need to consider that an additional 6.2% are widowed, 2.1%
are separated, and 28.6% have never been married.

It's all there in the spreadsheet. Don't tell me you too have webTV
and can't read a simple spreadsheet?



I can read it just fine. Now it's -your- turn to read it: Notice that
the total for each row is 100%. So how many people are counted in two
or more categories?


None if you add all the numbers together to get that 100%. Although I
would tend to think that there should be no difference between
"married spouse absent" and "separated". Although the former category
could refer to things like military deployment for long term. But
then, I'm guessing at that point.



Yep, you sure do a lot of guessing. I'll agree with that.


"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"

And you accuse ME of watching too much TV?


You do, and that's why I used the quote.

Yea, I'll bet. I've never even seen "West Wing", but it doesn't
surprise me that you have.



You bet I do! It's a lot better than most of the other crap that's
pushed onto the public as 'entertainment'.


That figures. West wing is very liberally slanted so I've been told.



Of course you believe everything you're told as long as you're told
it's liberally slanted.


I prefer "24". The most intense show on TV.



yawn. If I want to watch a shoot-em-up-bang-bang show with bad dialog,
shallow characters and weak plots I'll watch reruns of Rawhide.





----== 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 =----
  #340   Report Post  
Old June 7th 05, 06:34 PM
Dave Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:35:23 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Yes, but the total effect on climate cannot be positively confirmed.
You have many of the pieces of the puzzle, but not enough to complete
the total picture.



So now you jump to the other side of the logical fence and claim that
absolute proof is required instead of "high statisitical probability".
Yet another flip-flop.


All we have been able to determine is that we are in a period of
global warming. Evidence has suggested that this planet has endured
many such cycles in its past. It is irresponsible to think that
mankind alone is responsible for the current phase of warming, and it
is equally irresponsible to suggest that if we were to magically stop
using fossil fuels today, that we could stop or reverse the trend. The
best we may be able to do is slow it down. But at what cost?


But only for a couple years, even for a really big volcano. The
current trend of global warming has been occuring for almost a
century. That's about as much disruption as driving over a pothole
while climbing a mountain pass.


It's likely that the current warming "trend" has been going on for far
longer. We've only obtained in the last 50 or so years the technology
to track subtle climatic and weather changes. What occurred before
that is anyone's guess, and evidence obtained in soil and ice samples
only fits in a part of that puzzle, and can give us a general idea,
but not specifics.


I obviously know more about the subject than you, and there are
scientists that study this stuff professionally and know gobs more
than I will ever learn. You are the only one guessing, Dave.


I am not guessing at anything. I am reading what those scientists, who
know gobs more than you do, say. There is not a consensus among the
scientific community as to the degree, direction, and involvement of
humans on global warming. There are many scientists who cannot come to
the same conclusions that you seem to have bought into, due to glaring
holes in the evidence.



What holes? Humans -aren't- dumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere? If not then where are those gasses coming from?
Not volcanos, that's for sure......


Yes, we have an effect, but to say that our burning of greenhouse
gasses is the sole reason why we're in a warming trend is
presumptuous.


Dave, despite what you and most of the Republican party would like to
believe, there is indeed a consensus in the scientific community that
the global temperature is rising,


No argument.


and that we are the cause.


That is where you are wrong. We are likely NOT the cause, we are
merely a contributor or accelerator. There is still much debate on
just how much effect we truly to have.


The only
disagreement is about the degree of impact this change will have on
our civilization. Oh yeah, and what to call it: "global warming" or
"climate change".


You don't read much outside of those reports which support your
foregone conclusion do you?


I could give you a dozen links if you'd like. I already gave some to
Twisty previously.



Post them if you want.


I'll post one. It's an overview of the whole controversy and gives
both sides of the issue:

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/...rsial_Issue s


Led to, but not completely dependant on. Tree ring growth does follow
a certain repeatable pattern relative to solar output.



Yes it does, Dave. It may be superimposed upon other climate changes,
but can be found just like a steady sine wave in a spectrum of noise.


But there are
still other factors which can influence them. A volcanic "winter" for
instance, will deviate tree rings from the predictable pattern that
would otherwise occur with a higher than normal solar output.



A volcanic winter does not change the cycle of the sun, only it's
effects, and usually only for a cycle or two.


But a colder than normal winter over a period of years WILL effect the
thickness and spacing of tree rings irrespective of the sun's output.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to provide
the names of those "senior level engineers".

And what difference would it make if I posted them? You don't know
them.


Mind if I use that excuse the next time -you- ask for references?


I've never asked you for personal references. I understand the
futility of such a request.


Then you should also understand the insignificance of any claims made
based upon sources you are unwilling (or unable) to provide.


Certainly.


, or
a picture of your house and boat, or any other circumstantial evidence
that supports your claim. Of course you won't -- you will just come up
with more excuses.


I already have pictures of both on my website. Next?



See below.....


So why the secrecy, Dave? I graduated EWU and I'm
proud of it.


So you say. We have only your word for that.


I have no problem telling anyone where I went to school,
and for two very good reasons: First, anyone can verify that I both
attended and graduated from EWU.


No they can verify that someone by the same name (Maybe N7VCF)
graduated from EWU.



Sure, and I can just take a picture of someone else's diploma and call
it mine, just like you can take a picture of someone else's house and
boat and call it your's, right?


Keep going, you're getting warmer......


Get a clue already..... my middle
initial is D, not C. And I don't recall N7VCF ever claiming to have
graduated from EWU. Do you?


No, but it was an example of someone with a similar name. Just to
illustrate my point. But...........


If I wanted to lie, I could find a school where someone named "Dave
Hall" (And there's bound to be plenty given the popularity of my name)
attended, and claim that it was me. Then how would you know for sure?



How do I know for sure that those pictures are of your house and your
boat? I don't.


Exactly! Thank you for finally getting the point Frank. The fact is
that you can not be sure of any information one may post to "verify"
their status in life. With the skills of the internet, one can create
a completely artificial identity. So therefore, it is pointless to
continue to ask.


I have far more reference material than that one book could ever
provide.



Ah yes, the internet -- the "global pornography network"; the
"poor-man's library"; the "information superhighway"..... where any
kid with a computer and some pocket change can 'source' any tidbit of
mental popcorn, fact or fiction, knowing that some gullible retard
will eventually incorporate it into his or her "core belief" system.


My, my, do I detect a bit of contempt? Maybe it bothers you that I
(and many others) can access information on the internet for free
instantly, (and currently) where it cost you hundreds of dollars to
amass in book form?

Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".
It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


Along those lines, I'm sure you have found the homepage for the Hudson
Institute, and if you really had any money I'm sure you be paying your
tithes to them on a monthly basis. But be careful of what political
ideologies you support, Dave -- you might end up getting drafted at
the spry young age of 60 after your neocon bretheren ever manage to
convince Bush that invading China is a good idea.


Maybe it is. Neither you nor I have any idea what is really going
through the minds in Bejing......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419 ­ October 22, 2004 Radionews CB 2 October 23rd 04 03:53 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419 ­ October 22, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 October 22nd 04 08:00 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419 ­ October 22, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 October 22nd 04 08:00 PM
OLD motorola trunking information jack smith Scanner 1 December 12th 03 10:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017