Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:05:29 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:21:23 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where
you
pasted that from, but it's not very well done.

"such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to
the
object, without BEING the object.

Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't
understand this important distinction.

You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference
between
effect and affect, but you are getting close. :')

I pulled that definition out of the first online dictionary I came to.

You like the AP Stylebook better? Here's an excerpt from an online
edition
of it:

"Use like as a preposition to compare nouns and pronouns. It requires an
object: Jim blocks like a pro."

Your problem, Charlie, is that while you may have some book learnin',
you
have no ear whatever for the language in context. You have a tin ear for
usage. "Like" was perfectly correct as Katy used it, and was perfectly
appropriate in the context in which she used it. "Such as" would have
been
awkward and stilted. It's the kind of phrase a literate writer might use
in
a brief, but not in a news group.

. . . or in vis-a-vis conversation.

Don't be too hard on BB--he wasted all his money on Whitworth tools when
metric and SAE would have worked just fine.

Max


Max=hack. He may as well use vice-grips.

Only on *your* bikes.

Max

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message

With a wife *like* his, dead would be preferable.

Max



A bitch wife? I know that's got to be a bummer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

In article 45cbb43d$0$97247$892e7fe2
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net, Ellen MacArthur says...


"Maxprop" wrote
Irrationality is a hallmark of the Bush-haters.

Irrationality's the hallmark of all liberals. Didn't the total failure of Air America
liberal radio prove it? Liberals are so irrational they can't even stand their own
irrationality.

I'm in one of the most liberal counties in the country. I've
learned that if I regard them simply as amusing it keeps me from
taking their babbling too seriously.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
....PK

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

Max

Yes but the apathetic American public always needs impending doom to make any
changes in thier lives even if those changes will directly benefit themselves.
I largely agree with you on the GW issue that we really don't know but
cleaning things up would be a good idea. Fossil fuel emmissions come with a
lot of problems that we know exist and have proof of but may not cause us to
all die. Still they are problems and should be addressed but people in this
country just wont do anything but bitch until they think the world will end.
If GW will make people decide producing less pollution is a good idea then I
say so be it. Capt. JG might be a little overzealous but people making noise
like he is clearly doing might inspire some other "genius" to make a change
in their lives for the better even if for the wrong reasons.

Bill

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message
arthlink.net...


"Capt. JG" wrote in message



So far, I haven't seen much in the way of facts from you.

(This from the guy who's been supporting his arguments with statements
like "science says it is so.")



You'll listen to big business, but not to scientists. Maybe you think
smoking doesn't cause cancer?

I listen to both sides. You don't. My only contention is that when
some scientists support the notion of GW, and others dispute it, the
issue is far from conclusive. You, of course, contend that any
scientist who disputes the notion of GW must be in the hip pockets of
big business. That is the hallmark of a closed mind.

Max




Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW? I contend that there are always
a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence.
What do you believe in? So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual
facts on the subject.


YYou haven't got it yet...scince can look at thuings short term and draw
conclusions and science can lok at overall picutres and applyn the short
term and draw a conclusion. Your science is short-sighted...



Ummm... you're right. If science can look at the short term and draw
valid conclusion and science can look at the long term and draw valid
conclusions, then science is not short-sighted. Why don't you tell how
the earth is only 10,000 years old. You need to give it up. You're not
making any sense at this point.


No...it's you who don't make sense...over the long term...the millions of
years that one can look at, the tests, based on core samplings, tree
rings, etc etc etc say that this is a cyclical and historical event...I
suppose yur contention os that there must have been ancient civilisations
of man that cuased it to happen before..if you look at climate and weather
patterns over short term, you lose track of the previous cycles ..you
cannot make conclusions based on the short erm relative to earth climatic
change...I really don't think you understand this at all...


You don't know the facts. The facts are that the rate of climate warming has
increased dramatically in the last 100 years or so, far more than can be
explained by the normal cycle of hot/cold. In addition, the increase in
human population has prevented such things as normal relocation of plants
and animals through what would be normal migration patterns. This is not a
long term trend. This is a dramatic increase in the RATE of change, not
something that has been seen in the previous millions of years.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW?

If you bothered to be circumspect, you'd realize that the
meteorological/geographical scientific community is almost evenly split on
the subject.

I contend that there are always a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by
the preponderance of evidence.

I see. When scientists disagree with your point of view, they are wackos?

What do you believe in?

I've made that clear in any number of posts. But since you seem to read
selectively: I believe that the global warming we are currently
experiencing is, to some unknown degree, influenced by the activities of
mankind. I also believe that the warming trend is at least party natural
and predictable, and would have occurred during this same period even if
the Earth had no human population. The net effect of human activity upon
the warming of the planet is unknown, albeit real. Until we actually
know, any attempts to correct the perceived problem will likely have one
of two outcomes: 1) it will achieve nothing substantive, or 2) it will
cause unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the subject.

I've cited at least as many facts as you have. You spout vitriol and
platitudes, but offer up no evidence. You automatically assume that
*everyone* already knows all about GW, or at least your version of it.
You have a closed mind.

Max



You're completely wrong about an even split. The vast majority of scientists
know that we're dramatically changing our environment for the worse. Look it
up for gods sake. You're really not putting your best foot forward here.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6d86598928fe8@uwe...
unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

Max

Yes but the apathetic American public always needs impending doom to make
any
changes in thier lives even if those changes will directly benefit
themselves.
I largely agree with you on the GW issue that we really don't know but
cleaning things up would be a good idea. Fossil fuel emmissions come with
a
lot of problems that we know exist and have proof of but may not cause us
to
all die. Still they are problems and should be addressed but people in
this
country just wont do anything but bitch until they think the world will
end.
If GW will make people decide producing less pollution is a good idea then
I
say so be it. Capt. JG might be a little overzealous but people making
noise
like he is clearly doing might inspire some other "genius" to make a
change
in their lives for the better even if for the wrong reasons.

Bill

--
Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com



I? A LITTLE OVER ZEALOUS!!!!!! no way. g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message

With a wife *like* his, dead would be preferable.

Max



A bitch wife? I know that's got to be a bummer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

You know her personally? Wow. You should tell Rush.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message


I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max




Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over,
it's got to be true.

Do you really read Max's posts? He has decried Bush on more than one
occasion. And is far from the religious rught wing Conservative you make
him out to be....


Occasionally putting Bush down in the most milk-toast way possible for
all the terrible things he's done doesn't quite cut it.

I don't see him as the villain you do, but I dislike his actions
intensely. I am on the opposite side of his so-called immigration amnesty
stance. I think his involvement in the Iraq war was poorly conceived and
badly executed. And I oppose his troop surges. I think he should stand
up to the Iraqi government, make some demands, and demand some oil as
payment for our sacrifices there, but of course he won't. I have other
issues with him as well. But I do believe he is basically a decent man,
if an ineffective or misguided President. You, OTOH, believe he'd rape
your mother, murder you father, and behead your local parish priest.
Irrationality is a hallmark of the Bush-haters.

Max



Yes, I know you don't. Another example of not really looking at the facts at
hand. g

I don't think he's much of a "decent" man, given he's responsible for the
deaths of 1000s of people for no good reason.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Who are you gonna listen to?
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message

I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.

The real world of make-believe science.

Max



Sure Max. Unlike your "real world" of religious belief and right-wing
certitude. I'm sure if you keep saying Bush is right over and over, it's
got to be true.

You haven't been paying attention at all, Jon. First: I've never
indicated any tendency toward or away from a personal belief in any
religion. Ever. Second: I'm not a right-winger at all, despite what that
flaming liberal Doug keeps saying. g Third: I strongly dislike George
W. Bush and his politics. When I take left-wing idiots to task, you
simply interpret that as a defense of W. It isn't.

If you'd been paying attention, rather than simply calling me names, you'd
know all that.

Max



Max, I never called you any names. You're not right-wing? I apologize. You
sure fooled me!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com