|
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:14:59 -0500, Charlie Morgan said: Hey, I thought you knew something about writing, Charlie. Nothing wrong with Katy's usage of "like." The problem is the word "and," which should read "with" It was the wrong usage, given the context. She should have used "such as". Using "like" would mean she was actually suggesting Reagan himself. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Your usage is #5 below. Hers in #1 and entirely correct. like 2 (lk) prep. 1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to. 2. a. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense. b. In the same way as: lived like royalty. 3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away. 4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers. 5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of string. 6) Referring to Whitworth tools. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message You CLEARLY don't know me! We've gotten a pretty clear picture from your ranting herein. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... "Charlie Morgan" wrote Dead guys make lousy Presidents, .... That's why Kerry lost. lol With a wife *like* his, dead would be preferable. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Charlie Morgan" wrote in message You CLEARLY don't know me! We've gotten a pretty clear picture from your ranting herein. Max Crystal. He's not worth the effort, since any argument ends up with him getting very angry. I think that's bad for his health, and I won't contribute to it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message reenews.net... "Charlie Morgan" wrote Dead guys make lousy Presidents, .... That's why Kerry lost. lol With a wife *like* his, dead would be preferable. Max A rich wife? I know that's got to be a bummer somehow. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse... This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably. N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition, except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably all be bowing to the Mullah by now.. Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He did actually win the election. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! The best pres we've had in a long time. Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man... I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't have been so good for you. He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the worst polling numbers since Nixon. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't born with that ability. Who was just preaching about the politics of hatred in another thread?? Max No idea... you? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Guess you didn't hear Bill say that he didn't need yet another tax break. I don't hear Cheney saying that. Cheney does--his investments earn him millions annually. Bill doesn't--he doesn't work, and his investments are more in line with Whitewater. Max Please show me where Cheney has said he doesn't deserve a tax break. Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. I'm sure that'll get you some traction with the right-wing nuts. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:50:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing billing records in the WH library is a much better story. Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion. What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing? |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... ..I'm gonna jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon... Too bad. I was hoping only Democrats would do that. Max It was a joke.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... as much as I would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and not as bed wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me Ellen Macarthur for President !!! (Too bad "she's" not a woman.) Max You been eating eyedrops or something? |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:47:16 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: He did actually win the election. Hey Jon, to borrow another page from the liberal catechism, it's time to move on. LOL Moreon.org? :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:50:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing billing records in the WH library is a much better story. Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion. Doubtful. It's all fantasy land for Karl (Actung) Rove and his minions. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
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.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Dave wrote: On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:50:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing billing records in the WH library is a much better story. Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion. What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing? Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Charlie Morgan wrote:
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. CWM I saw him yank an eye out with a pair once.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse... This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably. N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition, except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably all be bowing to the Mullah by now.. Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He did actually win the election. No one won that election... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! The best pres we've had in a long time. Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man... I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't have been so good for you. No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes, ....the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included.. He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the worst polling numbers since Nixon. Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message link.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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse... This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably. N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition, except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably all be bowing to the Mullah by now.. Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He did actually win the election. No one won that election... Gore won, and the Supremes voted him out. But, in any case, feel free to blame Gore for Iraq if that makes your day. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! The best pres we've had in a long time. Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man... I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't have been so good for you. No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes, ...the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included.. He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the worst polling numbers since Nixon. Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best... You're dreaming. You cite a couple of examples, claim that's the true measure of a president, then claim all has been rosey under the current screwed up administration. Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had in a long time. Bush is by far the worst. But, feel free to keep saying it isn't so. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:50:43 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing billing records in the WH library is a much better story. Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion. What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing? Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true. I still won't buy Tyson Products.... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:55:58 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing? Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true. Er...Jon, I think the question was intended to focus on why Hillary got away with it, not why Martha didn't. He selectively interprets what he reads...short sighted... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:55:58 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: What I want to know is why did Martha Stewart have to serve time and Hillary didn't for the same sort of thing? Lying to the Federal Trade Commission?? Insider trading? Defrauding investors? Get real. I'm sure if you say it enough, it'll be true. Er...Jon, I think the question was intended to focus on why Hillary got away with it, not why Martha didn't. Er.... Dave, Hillary didn't get away with anything. Her trial by fire in the public eye from the likes of the right-wing nuts was BY FAR more intense than anything Steward went through. And, for all the noise and all the smoke and all the shouting, not one prosecution. Hillary didn't get away with anything. Steward was a thief and a liar and not too bright. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:53:27 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Hillary's fairy tale about the immaculate generation of the missing billing records in the WH library is a much better story. Maybe you can find some scientific backing for the notion. Doubtful. It's all fantasy land for Karl (Actung) Rove and his minions. So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Keep at it Dave. Eventually, you'll be able to blame her for sun spots. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.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... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And besides the World Trade Center, the capitol building, the US Postal Service, the SuperDome, the Statue of Liberty, and Amtrak would no longer exist and we'd all have anthrax or worse... This was all on Bushco's watch... while he was on vacation probably. N...it may have been tried on his watch but it didn't come to fruition, except for the Trade Center...if Gore had been President we'd probably all be bowing to the Mullah by now.. Huh? All this happened while Bush slept. But, feel free to blame Gore. He did actually win the election. No one won that election... Gore won, and the Supremes voted him out. But, in any case, feel free to blame Gore for Iraq if that makes your day. You're really losing it, Jon. I didn't blame Gore for anything except being an A hole... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... And Clinton! g And that time they were correct! The best pres we've had in a long time. Get real...he was adequate at best and a sorry excise of a man... I guess all those years of prosperity and relative peace just couldn't have been so good for you. No..they weren't good for me at all...Steelcase went down the tubes, ...the town north of us in MI, greenville, lost its major sources of income and became a ghost town of sorts...prosperity was reserved for isplated areas of the country..fortunate for you that CA was included.. He was more popular, if that's any judge, during and after his impeachment for lying about a blow job than Bush is... the worst polling numbers since Nixon. Now that just goes to show you how warped the nation has become that someone would be more popular because of their sexual prowess that for their contributions as Presidnet...he was mediocre at best... You're dreaming. You cite a couple of examples, claim that's the true measure of a president, then claim all has been rosey under the current screwed up administration. Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had in a long time. Bush is by far the worst. But, feel free to keep saying it isn't so. Once again you are making things up out of whole cloth..never have I claimed things have been rosey under the current administratio..in fact, I have remained relatively silent on the ussie of GW Bish...you are making things up now, so I', going to quit replying... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Guess you didn't hear Bill say that he didn't need yet another tax break. I don't hear Cheney saying that. Cheney does--his investments earn him millions annually. Bill doesn't--he doesn't work, and his investments are more in line with Whitewater. Max Please show me where Cheney has said he doesn't deserve a tax break. Why would he do that? He *does* deserve a tax break. We all ****ing do. Oh, the old Whitewater thing... why don't you claim a Vince Foster conspiracy again. I'm sure that'll get you some traction with the right-wing nuts. You have no sense of humor anymore, Jon. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:45:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message thlink.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. Max doesn't even trust mathmatics. It's a gray area as far as he is concerned. Ask him about Whitworth hardware. He things it matches up exactly with Metric and SAE hardware. If that were so, there would be no such thing as a separate system named "Whitworth". LOL. The only important aspect of Whitworth tools is the money a few British companies made by selling them to people who were too myopic to realize that a combination of metric and SAE tools fit every single Whitworth fastener so closely as to obviate the need for Whitworths. If that weren't true, I have destroyed the nuts and bolts on my Gold Star. After 4 years of racing, I never had to replace a single fastener due to head damage. And that included at least five complete teardowns. How you spend you money is your business. Thankfully we had some savvy Britbike techs around here who knew that Whitworth spanners and sockets were a waste of money. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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. Cheers, Ellen |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com