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 =----

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:08:06 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.

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.
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.


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.

I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take
exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims.


And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.

Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more
importantly) your real world experience has been.


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.

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


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

Which is exactly what you did.

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

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.......


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.

I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of
my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind.


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.

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense. Where is the logic
that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any
way connected to domestic news services?

Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did
not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as
likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not
immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative
to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that? I suppose
you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity?




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?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference
between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your
comments right?


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.

Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's
mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with
my advice on CB radio? If you want to talk about politics, there are
too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or
"wrong".


Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that
supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats.

I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the
conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals. The
conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there
tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points
and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for
independent thought.

And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging
credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are
becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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.


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.


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.

I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take
exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims.


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


And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.

Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more
importantly) your real world experience has been.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the
tech school you claim to have attended.


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.

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.


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".


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

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. All the facts I have
provided can be independently verified by yourself and anyone else
willing to do so. You have provided nothing of the sort in -any-
topic.


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.

I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of
my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind.


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.

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense.


Only because you are incapable of thinking logically.


Where is the logic
that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any
way connected to domestic news services?


That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into
your crystal ball.


Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did
not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as
likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not
immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative
to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that?


Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must
decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased
because of corporate ownership influences and target audience
demographics. IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news
than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have
far less bias than any US news service, NPR included.


I suppose
you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity?


I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera. Or is that
something you divined from your crystal ball?




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?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference
between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your
comments right?


No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement
stands.


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.

Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's
mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with
my advice on CB radio?


After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the
archives.


If you want to talk about politics, there are
too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or
"wrong".


Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions
that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings.


Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that
supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats.

I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the
conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals.


You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's
not what comes up on my newsreader.


The
conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there
tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points
and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for
independent thought.


They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of
understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you
actually have a brain.


And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging
credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are
becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty.


Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building.







----== 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, 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.



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.


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.

I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take
exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims.


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.



And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.

Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more
importantly) your real world experience has been.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the
tech school you claim to have attended.

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.


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.

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.


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.

Your logic is often laughable and contains many fallacies.



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?


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?



.... 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. And I invite you to invest even
more of your leisure time researching my newsgroup participation in
yet another fruitless effort to discredit me.

But hey, if that makes you feel better about yourself, then who am I
to stand in the way of therapy.


I'll leave it to you and your obsessed minion Twisty to dig up all of
my mistakes. Until then, your ****ing in the wind.


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.

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense.


Only because you are incapable of thinking logically.

That's not logic. It's convolution.

What one country's news service bias is, has absolutely no bearing on
what another country's bias is. There is no connection or relation
whatsoever. Their bias depends on the agenda of those who are pulling
the financial or political purse strings and who sits in the editor's/
publisher's office.


Where is the logic
that supports your claim that a foreign news service bias is in any
way connected to domestic news services?


That's not what I said, Dave. Learn to read instead of gazing into
your crystal ball.

What you said makes no sense, so maybe you should rephrase it in a
more logical manner.


Of course your statement, however ignorant and illogical, still did
not address my claim which was that foreign news services are just as
likely to be politically swayed as any in this country. They are not
immune to agenda driven slant. But the exact degree of bias relative
to domestic services is irrelevant. You care to deny that?


Absolutely. Any news service is subject to bias simply because must
decide if any given article is newsworthy. US news services are biased
because of corporate ownership influences and target audience
demographics.

Not to mention the liberal slant of the reporters and writers who are
producing the articles. If corporate ownership had as much influence
as you imply, then the slant of U.S. news would be decidedly
conservative. Yet, with the notable exception of (Thank God for) Fox
News, that is not the case.

I suggest that you pick up copies of the books "Bias" and "Arrogance"
by Bernard Goldberg. Both are good reads into the liberal slant of the
mainstream media. Goldberg was a 28 year veteran of CBS news, and has
an insider's view on what actually goes on inside the "art" of news
reporting.




IOW, the Dutch are far less concerned with American news
than Americans, so an independent Dutch news agency is going to have
far less bias than any US news service, NPR included.

That may or may not be true depending on their bias toward or against
Americans. If they have a decidedly anti-American slant, they would
tend to only report on those news stories that paint America in an
unfavorable light.

I suppose
you would find Al-Jazeera to be the bastion of objectivity?


I don't think Jim claimed to get his news from Al-Jazeera.

No he didn't. But would you consider Al Jazeera's reporting of
Americans to be objective? Why or why not? Then explain why any of
those factors would be exclusive only to Al Jazeera.


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?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Twisty should learn the difference
between those terms. You did know to whom you were directing your
comments right?


No, I didn't. But since you didn't spot his error, my statement
stands.

I don't nitpick on grammatical mistakes. Only people who start losing
debates on the merits of debate itself, resort to attacking grammar,
structure or spelling errors. If you can't attack the message, attack
the messenger as it were.


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.

Several? Hardly. Other than you Twisty and sometimes Landshark (Who's
mostly annoyed at the continuing banter), who else has disagreed with
my advice on CB radio?


After 10 years of posting I'm sure I could find more than a few in the
archives.

Doubtful. Most are either thankful for my advice, or at least debate
with it on a civil level. I miss the days when Dennis O, Sean, Bill
E., Toll and others offered up their own perspectives with respect to
CB radio. Only the rapid malcontents have any consistent issue with
me.


If you want to talk about politics, there are
too few facts to make any definitive choice as to who is "right" or
"wrong".


Regardless, there are -many- people who have posted political opinions
that are contrary to your own warped and subjective whinings.


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But the fact that you
hold that opinion, in and of itself, is not proof that my contrary
opinions are "wrong".


Nobody (except one of your sock puppets) has posted -any- opinion that
supports or defends -your- opinions, even in rec.boats.

I have had many supporting opinions. Heck, in rec.boats, the
conservatives are pretty much even with the liberals.


You must be cross-posting to an alternative universe because that's
not what comes up on my newsreader.

Then you need to look harder. Most of the liberals there cannot think
independently. They offer up op-ed column of obviously biased
reporters as some sort of "support" for their opinions. But liberalism
defies logic, and that's what especially laughable about you Frank.
You, who claim to embrace logic, yet adopt a political ideology that's
mostly "pie in the sky" idealism. A philosophy that requires a great
deal of complicated governmental intervention to implement. The free
market capitalist society is one of true freedom. Those who work hard,
get rewarded. Those who don't....... Well they have no one else to
blame but themselves for what they end up with.


The
conservatives mount far better logical arguments. The liberals there
tend to limit their opinions to blindly regurgitating talking points
and cut and paste articles written by other people. So much for
independent thought.


They "regurgitate" their arguments in order to find some path of
understanding through your thick skull and to your brain, assuming you
actually have a brain.


But BS is still BS no matter how many times they "regurgitate" it.

And I have no sock puppets, your attempt to bolster your own sagging
credibility by trying to discredit mine notwithstanding. You are
becoming as paranoid and narcissistic as Twisty.


Doesn't matter since your only supporter has left the building.

Your still wrong Frank.

But your nature dictates that you will continue to attack me. But like
trying to find firm footing in quicksand, your arguments will be just
as ineffective.

That is why arguing politics is usually pointless.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

I'm sure the senior level engineers who I work with would take
exception to your highly sheltered and quite ignorant claims.


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?


And your explanations
don't fit within any educational (or engineering) standards, despite
your bogus claim to have had some formal education in electronics.

Which only shows just how sheltered your own education and (more
importantly) your real world experience has been.


Yet for some reason, you are -still- unable (or unwilling) to name the
tech school you claim to have attended.

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


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.

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


.... 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.






----== 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 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

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 =----