.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
kallend 2,180
Channman 2
Gravitymaster*********That's pretty funny. But I can understand why you would say that.
It's not hard to figure out.
You've been told to stop the personal attacks, so now you admit can't respond.
The greenies here may not say anything, but seriously kallend? You called rushmc a robot of his industry and insulted his employer and now you're trolling the hell out of gravitymaster and anyone else who will respond to you about personal attacks. This thread is garbage and it is 95% your doing.
+1
I've just returned from a self imposed banning and dammit, I missed all the back and forth banter.
You did call him a robot. It's as if you claim that he lacks independent thought. Or even the ability to have independent thought on the subject.
It's unfair for people to attribute the massive issues of the American system of higher education to you. Just as it is unfair to attribute the ills of the petrochemical industry to rushmc.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
It's unfair for people to attribute the massive issues of the American system of higher education to you. Just as it is unfair to attribute the ills of the petrochemical industry to rushmc.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,180
lawrocketYou did call him a robot. It's as if you claim that he lacks independent thought. Or even the ability to have independent thought on the subject.
It's unfair for people to attribute the massive issues of the American system of higher education to you. Just as it is unfair to attribute the ills of the petrochemical industry to rushmc.
Read what I wrote, Counselor. Don't make it up for me.
It is a FACT that his employer emits millions of tons of pollutants each year, and it is a FACT that he toes his employer's line without any deviation. Stating those FACTS is not remotely the same as attributing the ills of the power industry to him
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,180
champu******That's pretty funny. But I can understand why you would say that.
It's not hard to figure out.
You've been told to stop the personal attacks, so now you admit can't respond.
The greenies here may not say anything, but seriously kallend? You called rushmc a robot of his industry and insulted his employer and now you're trolling the hell out of gravitymaster and anyone else who will respond to you about personal attacks. This thread is garbage and it is 95% your doing.
No-one forces you to read it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jakee 1,610
turtlespeedIt just makes sense . . . that was the only way you could legitimately acquire those awards.
It's funny, I always thought at its core the Republican party valued personal responsibility, work ethic and self improvement over everything else... yet here are the three right wing amigos acting so jealous and resentful of someone who's worked harder and been more successful than them.
I guess I've got more to learn about politics.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend***You did call him a robot. It's as if you claim that he lacks independent thought. Or even the ability to have independent thought on the subject.
It's unfair for people to attribute the massive issues of the American system of higher education to you. Just as it is unfair to attribute the ills of the petrochemical industry to rushmc.
Read what I wrote, Counselor. Don't make it up for me.
It is a FACT that his employer emits millions of tons of pollutants each year, and it is a FACT that he toes his employer's line without any deviation. Stating those FACTS is not remotely the same as attributing the ills of the power industry to him
Here are your words:
QuoteAs we see from the way you toe your employer's line like a good little robot.
You have not attributed the ills to him. You have IMPUTED the ills of the power industry to him.
You didn't call him a rat. You called the rats him.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
The basic premise of global warming centers primarily around chemical compounds produced either from hydrocarbon combustion or decomposition, cow farts etc etc. The chemical culprits are alleged to be carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). The mechanism proposes that elevated levels of both impede the path of incident sunlight from bouncing off the surface of the Earth and returning out to space in a more direct line of flight. So the best analogy might be that of "molecular bumper cars." it is also theorized that both CO2 and CH4 also act as heat absorbers. CO2 and CH4 are low IR (heat) absorbers and as such produce weak IR spectral signatures. What I do not hear in this global warming argument are the other by products of combustion, chiefly water (H20) and the oxides of nitrogen (NOX). These compounds are high IR absorbers and give very strong IR spectra. So is there a ring of truth to global warming? Perhaps, but there are other variables that require consideration that somehow don't find themselves into the debate. A volcano in Japan has been erupting rather frequently spewing a lot of particulates into the atmosphere. Geologic subduction contributes to natural heating along with the tremendous amounts of heat produced below the oceans in the mid Atlantic and Pacific Ridges respectively. What I do think we can intuitively agree on is that we should be concerned about air pollution and start working and developing the technologies to provide cleaner and hopefully cheaper transportation. Fossil fuels will hopefully be replaced by other fuels but its not going to happen overnight. And OBTW petroleum is not just for fuels, the nylon and other materials used in making our canopy's and other parts of our rigs come from petrochemicals. One last comment. Engineering and physics are part of getting to the solution but so is the chemistry and mathematics and computer science etc. My initial point is the solution lies chiefly in the science and not the politics, alarmism, or the narrative of propaganda. Enough...I'm Done! Time to go study for my Cat B.
ibx 2
QuoteMy initial point is the solution lies chiefly in the science and not the politics, alarmism, or the narrative of propaganda. Enough...I'm Done! Time to go study for my Cat B.
That's where you're wrong. Without political will to shift towards cleaner methods of transportation, including subsidies and environment laws mankind will take easiest most profitable path without any afterthought as to what it might mean for the environment or future generations.
My INITIAL point! Let me say that again so YOU understand...my INITIAL point. Good policy is the result of good study and good science. I just maintain the view that one follows the other. The focus of my argument was the science. You are free to believe whaterver you wish.
kallend 2,180
lawrocket******You did call him a robot. It's as if you claim that he lacks independent thought. Or even the ability to have independent thought on the subject.
It's unfair for people to attribute the massive issues of the American system of higher education to you. Just as it is unfair to attribute the ills of the petrochemical industry to rushmc.
Read what I wrote, Counselor. Don't make it up for me.
It is a FACT that his employer emits millions of tons of pollutants each year, and it is a FACT that he toes his employer's line without any deviation. Stating those FACTS is not remotely the same as attributing the ills of the power industry to him
Here are your words:
QuoteAs we see from the way you toe your employer's line like a good little robot.
You have not attributed the ills to him. You have IMPUTED the ills of the power industry to him.
You didn't call him a rat. You called the rats him.
Nonsense. You can read better than that.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DanG 1
QuoteThis thread is a magnificent example of how speaker's corner works.
Fixed that for you.
- Dan G
This is true.
Telling the truth about the millions of tons of pollutants his employer admits to emitting annually is not an insult, it is just a fact.
And rush consistently follows the line that it's OK. That too is a fact.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.