Leaderboard

Hi Sky, Disclaimer: I am no expert on this. However, it is my understanding that this issue has never been adjudicated. Jerry Baumchen

That is an unrealistic standard. There NEVER is an explicit "this for that". When someone comes to your business with 3 goons carrying baseball bats, and suggests you purchase protection, because it would be really helpful to make sure no one trashes your store in the near future, there is no explicit "this for that" and yet it is quite obvious what is meant. The reason Trump used to keep repeating "no collusion" and "no tit for tat" is because he wants to set the goal line at specific standards that are impossible to be met with any certainty. He is setting up his ability to say at the end: See: "no collusion", no matter what was revealed: "collusion", for example isn't a legal term, so was never going to be in the report, so he was sure that he would be right in the end--same here.

Yaaawwwnnn.... I don't see 500. They only list 14 (Who are well known deniers) but say it was prepared by 500 scientists. Who are the other 486? And really, if they're going to list these as the most relevant why couldn't they find people who weren't formally discredited in a courtroom or by their entire academic body? Professor Guus Berkhout – The NetherlandsProfessor Richard Lindzen – USAProfessor Reynald Du Berger – French CanadaProfessor Ingemar Nordin – SwedenTerry Dunleavy – New ZealandJim O’Brien – Rep. of IrelandViv Forbes – AustraliaProfessor Alberto Prestininzi – ItalyProfessor Jeffrey Foss – English CanadaProfessor Benoît Rittaud – FranceMorten Jødal – NorwayProfessor Fritz Vahrenholt – GermanyRob Lemeire – BelgiumThe Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – UK Edit: Also, is there some research associated with this or was it a letter that just said, "We don't think there's a climate emergency and plants like CO2."

Ran out of English language denier sources? Edit: Ha, I was curious about the signatories on the list and I only checked two but it was humorous. Professor Richard Lindzen (Retired), best known for his entire academic body calling him out as not reflecting the views and research of his former colleagues: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump Terry Dunleavy, was found IN COURT to be entirely unqualified and lacks scientific expertise: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10834154 Edit2: A third, Fritz Vahrenholt, debunked climate denier, as in he actually research, had it published and it was wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt I'm kind of busy this morning but this is funny, as the only three I've looked at basically hookers for hire in the denier movement. The group Dunleavy was with was actually fined for the cost of the court case they brought as it was found to be a waste of taxpayer dollars. They liquidated and declared bankruptcy leaving taxpayers on the hook for $85k.

Actually, we saw ourselves more as trail blazers. And you are very welcome.

Well, an R made a statement to the effect of "finding someone guilty without trial". Of course, the impeachment process is the beginning of what will end up being a trial, with the Senate as jury. But he apparently doesn't know that. Or expects that the Trumpettes can't understand that. Probably right on that part.

sorry for the delay in response. it would have more rigid shape, more harness sensitivity, better rear range and response, slightly shorter dive and lots more forward drive. a great mix of traits for most jumpers we generally start offering the wing at 200 jumps. Hope that helps

It is not true. In fact, on the contrary - they have a lifetime limit for all equipment Lexa

Please share the page in the PISA manual that sets a 20 year life.