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 =----

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

No argument.


and that we are the cause.

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


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

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


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


Post them if you want.


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Certainly.


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

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


See below.....


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:34:16 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

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


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


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

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


Well, let's take a gander at what the internet has to say:

http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.shtml
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-in...-worldwide.htm
http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I can provide many more links to many more authoritative sources if
you can't find them yourself.


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

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


"Anyone's guess"? Gee, that's funny -- according to the links above,
paleoclimatologists have been able to get temperature records from as
far back as the 17th century, and determined that CO2 levels haven't
been this high in 500,000 years.

As I stated before, Dave, the only one guessing is you.


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

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


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

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


Not at all. Read (if you can) the links I provided. If you browse
their sites you will find links to the top climatology labs in the
world, almost all of which debunk the politically-motivated myth you
have been led to believe.


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

No argument.


and that we are the cause.

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


The only 'debate' is in the political arena:

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/c...ml#September15


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

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


Sure I do. I even read some of the crap put out by the Cato Institute.
Wanna hear about the Cato Institute?

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp


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


Post them if you want.


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

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


Nice page! Thank you!


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


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


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


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

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


If you read the links above they note that the current global warming
trend has been occuring since the beginning of the industrial
revolution, yet the cooling effect of Mt. Pinatubo (sp?) resulted in
only a brief fluctuation.


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

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


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

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

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

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?


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

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


See below.....


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?


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


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

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


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.


Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.


It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit". OTOH, you could modify
your favorite cliche to extend to the internet where it's much more
appropriate; where you, Dave, happen to be it's most glaring example:
"The internet never refuses ASCII".


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

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


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world. Fortunately for you,
the rest of us do.






----== 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, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?

Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience
contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to
turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive
is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is
valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that
level of proof is usually not forthcoming.

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

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


See below.....


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?

You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present
pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told
you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by
your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I
bother?


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


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

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


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.

Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take
me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike),
find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have
read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil
greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time.
It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter.

Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.

Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......."

It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit".

Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the
published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally
correct, factual, insightful, and rational?

I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the
publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity.



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

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


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world.

Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball.

Fortunately for you, the rest of us do.

I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is.

You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust
the wrong people.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:03:01 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Certainly.


Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission,
have no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by
repitition? Or are you just plain stupid?

Well, gentlemen understand that certain personal experience
contributes to the insight on certain subjects. But if you want to
turn every claim into an "It's a lie until irrefutable proof positive
is offered to substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is
valid. In that case, there's no further point in debating, since that
level of proof is usually not forthcoming.


Yet you keep begging for proof. If you ask others for proof of -their-
claims but refuse to provide proof of -your- claims then you are a
hypocrite, a fact which you have unwittingly proven so many times in
this newsgroup.


snip
With the internet you can also -confirm- a true identity. But that's
not what I'm asking -- I'm simply asking for proof that you make as
much money as you claim; that you work in the engineering field as you
claim; that you attended an electronic tech school as you claim; etc.
Or should I just file those claims in the basket along with your
imaginary engineer sources?

You just admitted above that I could forge a diploma, or present
pictures of things that aren't mine and claim they are. So if I told
you the name of the schools I attended, or submitted a pay stub, by
your own admission, you couldn't be sure it was mine. So why should I
bother?


Because even now, after you have gone to such great lengths to avoid
giving that info, I might just believe it. At the very least it would
lend a -little- bit credibility to your claims, which so far have no
credibility at all. But if you don't want to fork over the info that's
fine -- you go right on saying how you attended some anonymous tech
school, cite the opinions of imaginary engineers, and brag about how
you are financially well-to-do -- those are just three items in a long
list of unproven claims you have made in just the past few months. So
even if you -can- prove them, who cares? You're still an idiot, a
liar, a hypocrite and a homophobe. And after your latest revelations,
probably a closet Nazi, too.


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


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

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


No contempt at all -- if you want to limit your resources because
you're too lazy to read a book then that's your problem.

Lazy? Are you some sort of luddite purist? In the time it would take
me to drive to a library (And where I live, it's a bit of a hike),
find an appropriate book, sign it out, and bring it home, I could have
read much more similar information on-line at no cost, using no fossil
greenhouse gas fuel, and at a great saving in precious personal time.
It's not about being lazy, it's about efficiency. Working smarter.


There are resources in a public library that simply are not available
on the internet. One of the biggest reasons is because of copyright
laws, but there is also a much wider variety of reference materials
available there as well. And since so many libraries now have internet
terminals, you can do -both- at the same time. If you're so worried
about creating greenhouse gasses then don't eat so much, since methane
is 20 times as reactive as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.....
oh, but that's right, you don't think global warming is caused by
humans. Well, that blows -that- excuse all to hell. But even if you
have any doubt, ride a bicycle, take a bus, hitch a ride with a
neighbor going in that direction. Or simply plan ahead to go there
next time you're in the area.

Or you can just sit at home and make excuses, which is just fine with
me.


Perhaps you're unaware of the phrase: "The paper never refuses ink".


No, I've heard it plenty of times before -- you use the cliche as if
it were God's Eleventh Commandment.

Here's another one: "If the shoe fits......."

It's not just the internet where a passionate pundit can publish their
slanted viewpoints. Just because it's in hardback form doesn't mean
than an equally gullible retard won't eventually incorporate it into
his or her "core belief" system.


The paper may not refuse ink but publishers will usually refuse the
submission of a half-baked "passionate pundit".

Really? Then I guess by this revelation, that you'd endorse the
published books by such people as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Bernard Goldberg, and Micheal Medved as being totally
correct, factual, insightful, and rational?


Apparently you don't have enough brains to realize that such books are
published because of the author's celebrity and/or controversial
status. It's easy money.


I guess it never occurred to you that profit motivation in the
publishing field is a far greater motivator than factual integrity.


On the contrary, factual content tends to be -very- important to
publishers. Books (by celebrities and controversial personalities) are
screened by teams of lawyers looking for possible cases of libel. But
those books tend to be mostly opinion, and opinion does not constitute
libel -- which is why -you- need to learn the difference between an
opinion and a fact. Have you learned that lesson yet?


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

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


Dave, you have no idea what is going through the mind of any rational
person in China or anywhere else in the world.

Of course not. I don't have your crystal ball.


Yep, mine works pretty darn well. It was one of the first things I
built when I went to tech school -- pretty simple stuff, I could write
a course on it.


Fortunately for you, the rest of us do.

I doubt that you realize just how asinine that statement is.


Not assinine at all -- it's people like me that keep people like you
from turning this country into a facist Christian autocracy.


You only know what other people tell you. The problem is, you trust
the wrong people.


Wrong. I trust nobody except myself. And sometimes I don't even trust
myself, but that's only because of an incident long ago involving a
fifth of Quervo and some prank calls to 911.....






----== 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 =----

(Then why do you keep invoking sources that, by your own admission, have
no credibility? Are you attempting to achieve truth by repitition? Or
are you just plain stupid? )


Well, gentlemen understand that certain

personal experience contributes to the insight

on certain subjects.


Which necessitates the end result a personal opinion or interpretation,
not a reality or fact.

But if you want to turn every claim into an "It's

a lie until irrefutable proof positive is offered to
substantiate it", situation then ok, your point is

valid.



Not every claim, just your wild, unsolicited claims regarding
self-qualification claims you felt important enough to bring forth, but
for which not to provide even remote substantiation.

In that case, there's no further point in

debating, since that level of proof is usually

not forthcoming.

Not from you it sure isn't.

David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote:
The fact is that you can not be sure of any

information one may post to "verify" their

status in life. With the skills of the internet, one
can create a completely artificial identity. So

therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask.


The Hypocrite Hall is now open...
The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.:

Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05


You aren't man enough to use your real name

4/21/05


Come clean with your real name 8/19/04


Mopar what's your real name-address-?

2/10/03


Try using your real name 11/8/04


Your real name should be inserted here

11/5/99

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:28:27 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
:

David T. (The Hypocrite) Hall Jr. wrote:
The fact is that you can not be sure of any

information one may post to "verify" their

status in life. With the skills of the internet, one
can create a completely artificial identity. So

therefore, it is pointless to continue to ask.


The Hypocrite Hall is now open...
The cries and tribulations of David T. Hall Jr.:

Give me your real name and address. 5/24/05


You aren't man enough to use your real name

4/21/05


Come clean with your real name 8/19/04


Mopar what's your real name-address-?

2/10/03


Try using your real name 11/8/04


Your real name should be inserted here

11/5/99


Yeah, I'm beginning to think he isn't who he claims -- probably one of
the real Dave Hall's genetic disappointments camped out in a trailer
in his back yard or holed up in the basement. I wonder if he's related
to Eddie, Freddie and Teddie Hall here in Spokane.....






----== 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 =----