On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
Now, let's take a closer look at this, and

expose just why these answers that you gave

are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you

were in the military in the mid 80's, then

worked for a while. Then you went back to

school (presumably because you had trouble

finding a decent job). Now a BS program

requires a 4 year course study at a minimum.



Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't
take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less.

For engineering? We're not talking about liberal arts here.

In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities
and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years.

Name them. And also list what the student has to do in order to cram 4
years worth of work and study into "less than" 4 years.

A B.S. degree requires a certain amount of credits and certain
required courses. So either you have to take more classes in less
time, or you are somehow "getting around" certain required classes.
That starts to bring up Frank's earlier analogy of the "new" 2 year
Bachelor's degree, and how the "old" 4 year degree would be worth more
by virtue of more time spend in the classroom.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens
to be the mayor of my home town?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/


No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the
associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play"
scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm


Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care
about a pedophile that not only used his government office for
cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for
'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get
lost because West is a conservative Republican?

Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has
nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away
from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in
the local news to events which are also occurring here. I was simply
not aware for what you were referring.


Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican
does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out
on them.


snip
All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and
computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been
much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun.


Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that
tech school you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell you.


Who does the majority party represent if not the majority?

Is this a loaded question?

Where does the Constitution require, or
even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the
government?

Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious
influences should NOT play any role in the government?


How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights?

It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights". It's matter of
tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices. The
government has no right to do such. The only thing the government can
or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the
same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when
dealing with secular issues.

You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should
understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church
doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government,
then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing
hypocrisy.

I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with
gay marriages.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:44:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Dave would know that already if he actually attended college.

Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting
a foot in a classroom.


Sure. Just send a few bucks to a PO box listed in an advertisement in
the back of Rolling Stone magazine.


But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case.
You had a certain amount of credits that you had to earn, and a
required course curriculum. Yes, it was possible to do it in less than
four years, but that required an overly ambitious fast-paced schedule.
Most people are not up for that.


It depends on the person. For some people, three hours a day in the
lecture halls is mindbogglingly slow. For others the challenge is
overwhelming. The trick is to choose classes each quarter/semester
that make the most efficient use of study time required -outside- the
classroom. And not to waste your time at keggers.

Also, some colleges and most Universities offer equivalency tests as
well as credits for prior experience directly related to the field. I
cut down my time by almost a full year by testing out of first-year
electricity courses, math all the way through calculus, and was given
credits for being a radio tech in the USMC.


Night school allowed people to avoid many of the "nonsense" courses,
which were unrelated to your major, that the full time day programs
usually required you to take.


Those "nonsense" courses have very legitimate purposes. Suppose your
major is electrical engineering. You need to study economics so you
can do a cost/benefit analysis for a design project, as well as be
able to run a business if the opportunity arises. For the same reason
it's a good idea to study a little business law and accounting. There
is no substitute for good communication skills, -especially- English
composition, and because my objective required strong communication
skills I decided to minor in the field. Along the same lines, a few
courses in humanities and history are also a very good idea since a
lot of current events either revolve around cultural differences and
issues, or require some understanding of the history surrounding the
events. Etc, etc, etc. You pick any course required for a BS and I'll
explain how and why it's related to your field of study.

Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because
it's 'liberal'?


But the people who took the night school
route usually were, like me, working full time during the day, and
could not take as many courses per semester and, consequently, it
could take close to 8 years to earn the B.S.


If that's the way they choose to do it then that's their choice. I
worked my way through college while working at night -- bartending.







----== 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 =----

On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Again, we know what the climate was, but not conclusively how it got
that way. There are many good theories, but that's all they are.


Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for
instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and
that Glaciers covered much of the northern
United States during different time periods.
This proves that the earth's climate has
vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this
DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current
global warming cycle can be attributed to
natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.

Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made.


Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to make a positive
determination as to the percentage of man's contribution to the total
amount of global warming.


Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring each,,including natural occurring vs.
manmade chemicals,,,such as methane gases.

Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute right now as there are many
scientists who do not accept the findings of others as conclusive.
There are still many assumptions being made.


Without a point of reference, it is extremely
difficult to positively determine how much we
are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas.

Which we cannot positively ascertain because we do not know how much
of that gas truly came as a result of man-made pollution versus that
which is naturally occurring. One large volcano eruption, for
instance, can drastically effect the concentration of methane gasses
in the atmosphere.


An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions.

Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not have a "tag" which says
"man made" or natural. We can only measure the total concentration.


It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value
that took college science classes.

Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious that you've never
studied it, as it is far too complex a process to be called
"elementary". By attempting to make this issue simpler than it really
is, you also disparage the scientists who do this for a living.


Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.

No argument. But you can't positively determine the rate of global
warming that might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped using
fossil fuels today.


Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be
occurring without man made pollution?

As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly

dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively? And you chastise MY vocabulary
and grammar.......


decided and accepted that something is amiss.

First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to climatic shifts.
Many of those shifts occurred as the direct result of an external
random event, such as the asteroid strike which is generally the
current accepted theory for precipitating the extinction of the
dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. There are other craters
all over the planet, as evidence of other such strikes. There is also
evidence of large volcano eruptions, which can spew enough particulate
matter into the atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely result. The
climatic shifts which occur between these significant events is likely
only the result of climatic balance or a normalization from the
extremes caused by the random external events. It'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.

We may still be "recovering" from the last ice age, as early evidence
shows that this planet was a great deal warmer millions of years ago.


When the glaciers continue
shrinking at an alarming rate that deviates from the projected models of
which you referred predictable climatic cycles

There have been more than a few major volcano eruptions in the last 25
years, which may play a role in this.


, and the amount of junk
released in the air we KNOW has increased,..it's widely accepted by even
the republicans at this point. Do you even know what your own party says
on this issue now, Dave? You appear to be aruing with -them-.

This is science, not politics. I'm arguing that we don't definitively
know the relative effects of man's pollution on the total amount of
global warming because there are still too many variables to make a
responsible conclusion.

You also failed to address the other side of the coin. Not only is
man's pollution a factor, but the gradual deforesting, by land
developers, can have a profound effect on the amount of CO2 in the air
(A major greenhouse gas)

_
You take issue with those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the
goblin that you are unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

I have nothing against "free thinkers" (I am one), but I have a
problem with reckless thinking, and drawing alarmist conclusions when
all of the facts are not yet known.


Once again, you don't get it (Why should I be
surprised?).

You won't be, because you continue to be on the defensive of everyone
that corrects you.

It's not my problem that you are wrong in most cases (The roger beep
issue notwithstanding)


You find fault with all of them.

"Them", consists of you, and now recently, Frank.

It's not us, Dave, it's you.

Yet you've failed to prove me wrong in virtually every dispute that
we've had.


It's apparent it is glaringly painful when you are wrong and
corrected, but dammit, man, its not personal.

It takes more than simply stating your opposing opinion and the citing
of a mythical "majority" support group, that you, as a freelance
fishing rag contributor, claim to have the inside track with to prove
me wrong. Where are your facts?

Simply claiming that "the majority disagrees with you" is meaningless,
without corroborating proof.


You want to get rid of what you refer to as
"poorly crafted laws"? Then great! Go for it!


No,,I love the laws and the manner in whcih they are enforced.

You'd rather break the law. Socially irresponsible.

They keep
dicks like you off the freeband and allow the rest of us to play
carefree and unfettered from you being reactive (oposed to proactive)
from the confines of your own home, much as you do on the internet. It's
yourself that has messed all over yourself time and again whining about
the lack of enforcement.

Yea, silly me, for wishing that more people would accept more personal
responsibility and understand their societal obligations, in the same
way that their grandparents did.


You have my support. But until then, you are
bound to respect and obey the current laws as
they stand.


Regarding this law and dx, I discriminately and selectively invoke Civil
Disobedience.

A lame excuse from a simple scofflaw who narcissistically places their
own idea of self worth above the value of society itself.

Because you have difficulty comprehending the definitions
of words these days, you may seek to "quantify",,,er,,,qualify it.
Sorry,,,couldn't resist.

That's ok, I would never have "deduecedy" figured that out without
your help.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:50:17 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
Now, let's take a closer look at this, and

expose just why these answers that you gave

are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you

were in the military in the mid 80's, then

worked for a while. Then you went back to

school (presumably because you had trouble

finding a decent job). Now a BS program

requires a 4 year course study at a minimum.



Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't
take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less.

For engineering? We're not talking about liberal arts here.

In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities
and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years.

Name them.


EWU, UW, WSU, OSU, USC..... pretty much most of them.


And also list what the student has to do in order to cram 4
years worth of work and study into "less than" 4 years.


Work hard.


A B.S. degree requires a certain amount of credits and certain
required courses. So either you have to take more classes in less
time, or you are somehow "getting around" certain required classes.


Or simply don't waste your time partying, buckle down and study.


That starts to bring up Frank's earlier analogy of the "new" 2 year
Bachelor's degree,


That was -your- analogy, Dave. And it's irrelevant to this discussion
since the concept of a "2 year degree" was to offer a BS after
completing only half the current academic requirements. This topic
deals with completing the current academic requirements in different
amounts of time.


and how the "old" 4 year degree would be worth more
by virtue of more time spend in the classroom.


Not "time", Dave -- the amount that is learned. If you really need an
analogy, just look at the requirements for an Extra-class ham license.
The code test is down to 5 wpm, which more than a few hams feel has
"diminished the value" of their license. You used the "2 year degree"
analogy as an argument against gay marriage when you -should- be using
it as an argument against dropping the code requirement. But I don't
hear you screaming about that at all.

Regardless, if a person can complete a 4 year BS program in 2 years,
more power to him. But that's not the same as cutting the cirriculum
in half in order to reduce a 4 year program to only 2 years. That's
the same as dumbing down the course..... in fact, it's not just the
-same- as dumbing down the course, it -IS- dumbing down the course.





----== 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 =----

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens
to be the mayor of my home town?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/


No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the
associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play"
scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm


Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care
about a pedophile that not only used his government office for
cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for
'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get
lost because West is a conservative Republican?

Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has
nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away
from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in
the local news to events which are also occurring here.


Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about
as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh?


I was simply
not aware for what you were referring.


Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican
does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out
on them.


That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject? No diatribe
about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? No sermon
on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? Instead you
refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you
have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language?

Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal
when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of
a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction". And all
the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a
criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your
own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice.

Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin.
Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw.

You're a trip, Dave.


snip
All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and
computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been
much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun.


Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that
tech school you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell you.


Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be
reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group.


Who does the majority party represent if not the majority?

Is this a loaded question?


Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast
majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If
they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what
was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not
the majority?


Where does the Constitution require, or
even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the
government?

Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious
influences should NOT play any role in the government?


You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this
country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the
sort?


How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights?

It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights".


That's absolutely correct, Dave.


It's matter of
tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the
Constitution.


The
government has no right to do such.


The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as
they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage
that's different than your's.


The only thing the government can
or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the
same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when
dealing with secular issues.


You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a
"marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right
to prevent them from exercising -their- rights.


You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should
understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church
doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government,
then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing
hypocrisy.


I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does
gay marriage impose government upon religion?

I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage
is not exclusive to religion. It may have been formally defined under
religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the
concept of marriage is not only secular but universal. And as I have
pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage
is, at best, poorly defined.


I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with
gay marriages.


You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street
that you do. You are a bigot.






----== 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 =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:56:11 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:
Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
Now, let's take a closer look at this, and


expose just why these answers that you gave


are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you


were in the military in the mid 80's, then


worked for a while. Then you went back to


school (presumably because you had trouble

finding a decent job). Now a BS program

requires a 4 year course study at a minimum.



Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits)

"Yep. Tarheel U. has (had?) a program set up for jarheads in Camp
Lejeune."


and it doesn't
take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less.
In fact, there are many who do it in less time. Many major universities
and schools have BS programs that take less than 4 years.


"Dave would know that already if he actually attended college."


Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting a
foot in a classroom.

But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case.

That's not what you said. Let's take a look at what you said, again....

Now a BS degree program requires a 4 year

course study at a minimum.



Again,,no it doesn't.


You had a certain amount of credits that you

had to earn, and a required course curriculum.


And many of those credits can often be earned on the job..

Yes, it was possible to do it in less than four

years,



You're not a bit self-contradictory,,you're lenty self-contradictory.

but that required an overly ambitious

fast-paced schedule. Most people are not up

for that.


Yea, your view of your fellow man has always been one of disdain and
beneath yourself.

Night school allowed people to avoid many of

the "nonsense" courses, which were unrelated
to your major, that the full time day programs

usually required you to take. But the people

who took the night school route usually were,

like me, working full time during the day, and

could not take as many courses per semester

and, consequently, it could take close to 8

years to earn the B.S.

Dave Hall

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"


You were wrong.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:03 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
Dave Hall, N3CVJ wrote:
"Now, let's take a closer look at this, and
expose just why these answers that you gave
are highly unlikely. You once claimed that you
were in the military in the mid 80's, then
worked for a while. Then you went back to
school (presumably because you had trouble
finding a decent job). Now a BS program
requires a 4 year course study at a minimum."
-
Frank was in the military (can earn you college credits) and it doesn't
take 4 years minimum to get a BS degree. It is often done in 3 or less.

For engineering?

Stop assuming, but since you did, I will lay odds years working in the
engineering field can translate into credits applied toward a related
degree. Credit for real work experience was conceived in the eighties
and took off in the nineties.

We're not talking about liberal arts here.



In fact, there are many who do it in less time.
Many major universities and schools have BS programs that take less than
4 years.

Name them.

There's that hypocrisy....(sigh),,you know, your refusal to answer for
your unsolicited and unbelievable claims haunts you so, which is why you
have lost all credibility. You provide for nothing these days, Dave, yet
find yourself on all fours begging others for confirmation of things the
generally educated public already know to be valid.
Try your own state's "bitch" of the Ivy League, Penn State. Look under
"fast track" and if you still can't find it, I'll place you in touch
with an admission's counselor who can try and make you understand such a
concept that is lost upon your forty-plus year old self.

And also list what the student has to do in

order to cram 4 years worth of work and study

into "less than" 4 years.



Simple. Summer classes is but a single method. But again, you are
assuming it takes 4 years work -and- study,,,it does not. Your answer
can never be correct when your equation is wrong from the beginning.


A B.S. degree requires a certain amount of

credits and certain required courses. So either

you have to take more classes in less time,



Ka-Ching! Give the man an affirmation for hitting on but a single
example that invalidates his original remark.


or

.you are somehow "getting around" certain

required classes. That starts to bring up

Frank's earlier analogy of the "new" 2 year

Bachelor's degree, and how the "old" 4 year

degree would be worth more by virtue of more
time spend in the classroom.


Dave Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"


You came full circle from denying it takes place (BS in less than 4
years) to not only acknowledging it happens, but giving your own
examples. See what you are capable of when others force you to think.
You sometimes just need a little kick of motivation.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
snip
"Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to
be the mayor of my home town?
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ "

No, I'm more interested in the criminal

activities surrounding the associates of the

democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to

play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally

relevant for me.


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.h

tm



Philly is the scumbag capital of the country. They have nothing to be
proud of in the last twenty five years. Jobs, crime, housing,
education,..all past the brink. Medical care is the only thing that is
even half decent in that area, and even that is a joke when all is taken
in to consideration.


"Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about
a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but
promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What
happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West
is a conservative Republican?"



Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a

bunch here. This has nothing to do with my

"morality", only that you live 3000 miles away

from me and, as such, the events which occur

there take a back seat in the local news to

events which are also occurring here. I was

simply not aware for what you were referring.

Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and

simple. Being a republican does not excuse

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.

snip

All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools

of the internet and computers back when I had
to do term papers. The task would have been

much less tedious and actually somewhat

interesting, and fun.



Chances are you would have cheated.

"Where did you go to college, Dave? And
BTW, what was the name of that tech school
you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell

you.


Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid
reasons. In the past, your claims were suspect at best, with a chance of
being correct. You removed all doubt with your hypocrisy. Your claims
now are now on par with what is to be found on www.snopes.com....

David HAll Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Again, we know what the climate was, but not

conclusively how it got that way.


It's called weather. Weather coupled with other events.

There are

many good theories, but that's all they are.


Changing the topic from one of you learning how global warming is
defined, studied, and confirmed to another serves only to solidify your
pain in ebing incorrect.

Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for

instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and

that Glaciers covered much of the northern

United States during different time periods.

This proves that the earth's climate has

vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this

DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current

global warming cycle can be attributed to

natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.

Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made.

Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to

make a positive determination as to the

percentage of man's contribution to the total

amount of global warming.


It's not difficult at all. I just taught you that the concentration of
such gases, such as methane gas, is but a single method by which is
measured.
Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring
each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as
methane gases.

Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute

right now as there are many scientists who do

not accept the findings of others as

conclusive. There are still many assumptions

being made.


Not regarding global warming. Twenty years ago, yes..today, it is widely
accepted and taught mainstream.

Without a point of reference, it is extremely

difficult to positively determine how much we

are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas.

Which we cannot positively ascertain because

we do not know how much of that gas truly

came as a result of man-made pollution


versus that which is naturally occurring.


But we do.

One large volcano eruption, for instance, can

drastically effect the concentration of methane

.gasses in the atmosphere.


Yes, but it does not dilute or enrich what is already there, it simply
adds quantity to one or the other. Such an example is very easily taken
into consideration and calculations allow for the exact molecular
configuration when determining such factors. This is done by the precise
and absolute measuremtn of related contributions, such as time of
eruption, length of eruption, velocity of eruption, etc., etc.

_
An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions.

Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not

have a "tag" which says "man made" or

natural.

We can only measure the total concentration.
=A0

Which is the exact manner in which to tell man-made from natural.
=A0It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took
college science classes.

Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious

that you've never studied it, as it is far too

complex a process to be called "elementary".

Umm,,no. Go back and reread just what I called "elementary"... not what
you felt the need to misrepresent here.

By attempting to make this issue simpler than

it really is, you also disparage the scientists

who do this for a living.

It is very simple for anyone who has ever taken college science classes,
but gases are introduced in elementary school science.
_
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.

No argument. But you can't positively

determine the rate of global warming that

might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped
using fossil fuels today.


Sure you can. One measures the rate of speed the studied glaciers melt.
If they suddenly stopped melting and began growing, the figured
equations and calculations are all that's left to give you the answer
you seek.
Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be

occurring without man made pollution?

As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly

dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively?

Ha,,no I meant "deucedly", as in wickedly confirmed. I was watching the
penguin on the Dudley Doright cartoons and my fingers did their own
thing..

And

you chastise MY vocabulary and grammar.......

Huge difference. I admit my mistakes whereas you scream bloody murder or
try to ignore yours because of the pain they cause you.

_
decided and accepted that something is
amiss.

First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to

clim`atic shifts.



When "deviation from the norm" is used in such a reference, it means
deviation from the usual patterns. -You- were first to claim weather
patterns in his topic, now you again, self-contradict yourself.

Many of those shifts occurred as the direct

result of an external random event, such as

the asteroid strike which is generally the

current accepted theory for precipitating the

extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the

Cretaceous period.


Not any more. Perhaps when you were i grammar school, but the most
compelling andgenerally accepted theory now is they simply died out. The
meteor that caused the ice age that was originally thought to have
brought about the extinction of such creatures is now believed to have
occured many, many years after the dinosaurs have already become
extinct.

There are other craters all over the planet, as

evidence of other such strikes.

Yea,,and if you ever were west of the Mississippi, you would have
undoubtedly had the chance to see one.

There is also

evidence of large volcano eruptions,


..in 'patterns' of eras of high activity.

which

can spew enough particulate matter into the

atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely

result.


And did.

The climatic shifts which occur between

these significant events is likely only the result
of climatic balance or a normalization from the
extremes caused by the random external

events. It'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, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have
intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer.
This is called global warming.
Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done.