|
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 |
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 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... How was he an asshole? He was VP for crissake. Bush on the other hand is our fearlessly incompetent leader. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:19:22 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. Ah, so you too believe in immaculate generation. That explains a lot. Who's Steward? You're ranting Dave. You need to chill. You know who I meant despite the typo. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... 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.... Well good for you! That's certainly taking a stand. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:19:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? And this is important because? And, Bush lying is not important because? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "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. Because it would conclusively prove he has a deep sense of humor. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
In article , Capt. JG
says... "katy" wrote in message ... 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... How was he an asshole? He was VP for crissake. Bush on the other hand is our fearlessly incompetent leader. algore was an asshole long before he was the VP -- "Tis an ill wind that blows no minds" ....PK |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message . earthlink.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. What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100 years is a nothing...better go study Jon...you know nothing about geomorphology, climatology or global cuclical changes in weather...and since you know nothing about it, and continue to argue in a cirtcular path that goes nowhere, I end this discussion, too...you are not even willing to go look at what I'm talking about...but that would require deviating from your limiteed ideas on the subject..so for now, I'm done in this thread... |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message .earthlink.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. What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100 years is a nothing...better go study Jon...you know nothing about geomorphology, climatology or global cuclical changes in weather...and since you know nothing about it, and continue to argue in a cirtcular path that goes nowhere, I end this discussion, too...you are not even willing to go look at what I'm talking about...but that would require deviating from your limiteed ideas on the subject..so for now, I'm done in this thread... You can't be that dense. We've never, EVER, seen a rate of change like the last 100 years. You're just not up on the facts, and claiming you are is just foolish. I can make the same argument... look at the facts. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:29:24 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. Ah, so you too believe in immaculate generation. That explains a lot. Who's Steward? You're ranting Dave. You need to chill. You know who I meant despite the typo. Unusual to make the same typo twice in one short paragraph. Well, I'm an usual guy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:30:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" attempted pathetically to bob and weave: So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? And this is important because? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Keep saying it Dave.. a couple of dozen more times should do it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:11:30 -0500, katy said: What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100 years is a nothing.. Jon has hockey stick on the brain, Katy Dave is full of... no, I'm not going to say it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:17:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Unusual to make the same typo twice in one short paragraph. Well, I'm an usual guy. Some folks might have thought you didn't know the lady's name. She's no lady. She's a viper. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:17:32 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Keep saying it Dave.. a couple of dozen more times should do it. Then you'll be willing to answer the question? Of course. -- "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. Folks in general won't react to GW until we have something similar to that portrayed in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." Folks need a brick against the head to wake up and see what's happening. The current scare tactics of the GW set are accomplishing nothing apart from making a few left-wing organizers quite wealthy. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "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. I have looked it up. As an example, Purdue University's meteorology department published a position paper a while back stating that man-made GW is probably a fact, but inconsequential compared with the normal global warming trend. Out of their entire faculty only one of their people dissented in that paper. I attempted to find a link for it, but so far I've been unsuccessful. Give it a try--you may have better luck. The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:47:37 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Charlie Morgan" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:05:29 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message m... 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 I use proper tools. You are the hack. Maybe your bikes aren't worth the effort. What bikes? I haven't owned any for several years. But my Gold Star race bike was a gorgeous piece of history. If I still owned it, I'd beseech you to find even one bolt with roundover marks on the head. Same with my 441 Victor. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:26:53 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Charlie Morgan" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:45:56 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message arthlink.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 You reveal yourself and your incompetence quite clearly. Incompetence?? Would you care to see a photo of a 10x12 bedroom filled with wall-to-wall trophies from my racing days? Hundreds of people used to race Brit bikes when I first got into flattrack racing. And I never met one of them who owned a set of Whitworth tools. You reveal yourself to be a pedantic ninny quite clearly. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message 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. What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the facts, so don't make something up. 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. There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such things, and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who design them. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:11:30 -0500, katy said: What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100 years is a nothing.. Jon has hockey stick on the brain, Katy Dave is full of... no, I'm not going to say it. For a moment there I thought you were going to tell him to puck off. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:28:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: How was he an asshole? He was VP for crissake. Ergo being an asshole and being VP are mutually exclusive? That's what I was wondering. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:29:24 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: 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. Ah, so you too believe in immaculate generation. That explains a lot. Who's Steward? You're ranting Dave. You need to chill. You know who I meant despite the typo. Unusual to make the same typo twice in one short paragraph. Well, I'm an usual gay. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:30:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" attempted pathetically to bob and weave: So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? And this is important because? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Keep saying it Dave.. a couple of dozen more times should do it. Really? Could have fooled me, since you apparently have no intention of answering his question. Max |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:11:30 -0500, katy said: What you don't understand is geoglofical and climatical history...100 years is a nothing.. Jon has hockey stick on the brain, Katy Dave is full of... no, I'm not going to say it. For a moment there I thought you were going to tell him to puck off. Max Now that's really hocky. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message 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. What's "dramatically" Jon? Give us some numbers. Careful--I have the facts, so don't make something up. 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. There definitely are too many people on the globe, and wildlife (both botanical and zoological) habitats are becoming eliminated and scarce in many zones. But only computer models can predict the effect of such things, and those models are often tainted by the agenda of those who design them. Max I'd point you to the website, but I think you can find it yourself... think Al Gore. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:28:10 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: How was he an asshole? He was VP for crissake. Ergo being an asshole and being VP are mutually exclusive? That's what I was wondering. Max Yes, I know. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:30:21 -0800, "Capt. JG" attempted pathetically to bob and weave: So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? And this is important because? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Keep saying it Dave.. a couple of dozen more times should do it. Really? Could have fooled me, since you apparently have no intention of answering his question. Max Only after he says it a couple of dozen more times. That'll make it real. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
Maxprop wrote:
The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion. From your favourite network: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html From your favourite government, "Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.", if Bush's people say it's so, it must be! Cheers Marty (Who would appreciate a little GW right now, it's frickin cold outside) ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------- For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install, fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best! ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ---- |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
... Maxprop wrote: The point is that you choose to believe that the majority of meteorological researchers are on board with your belief, but that simply isn't supported by fact. Feel free to prove me wrong with more than just your opinion. From your favourite network: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html From your favourite government, "Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.", if Bush's people say it's so, it must be! Cheers Marty (Who would appreciate a little GW right now, it's frickin cold outside) ------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------- For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install, fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best! ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ---- Don't believe it Max. It feels better not to believe it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:15:59 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Then you'll be willing to answer the question? Of course. See below. So what's the answer, Jon? Inquiring minds want to know. So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? I said a few dozen. Do you need to retake a math class? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Who are you gonna listen to?
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:09:40 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: I said a few dozen. Do you need to retake a math class? Your nose is growing, Jon. You said a couple of dozen. See Message-ID: A couple means two. Are you finding yourself becoming forgetful? Perhaps you need to consult a physician specializing in geriatrics. Ummm... didn't I say "say it a couple of dozen times"? So far, you've just been typing it. g So Hillary didn't really tell that fairy tale about the immaculately generated billing records showing up in the library? Then you'll be willing to answer the question? Ok. I was being mean to you Dave. You don't need to say it out loud a couple of dozen times! I'm pretty sure than no matter what I answer, you're not going to like it, so here's what was concluded on the subject. Feel free to believe that Hillary lied. http://www.answers.com/topic/hillary...-controversies Whitewater The Whitewater controversy was a series of events and actions that had its origins in 1978. While in Arkansas, the Clintons were partners with Jim and Susan McDougal in a real estate venture known as the Whitewater Development Corporation. According to reports, the Clintons lost their financial investment in the Whitewater business projects. At the time the McDougals operated a savings and loan that retained Hillary Clinton's legal services at Rose Law Firm. When the McDougals' savings and loan failed in 1994, federal investigators subpoenaed Clinton's legal billing records for auditing purposes. Hillary Clinton claimed to be unable to produce these records. After an extensive, two-year search, the records were found in the first lady's book room in the White House and delivered to investigators in 1996. The delayed appearance of the billing records sparked intense interest and another investigation about how they surfaced and where they had been; Clinton attributed the problem to disorganization that resulted from her move from the Arkansas Governor's Mansion to the White House as well as the effects of a White House renovation. [LH p. 331] After the discovery of the records, on January 26, 1996, Clinton made history by becoming the first First Lady to testify before a grand jury. [22] The Whitewater investigation was initiated by Independent Counsel Robert Fiske appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno. The case was later taken over by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, and concluded by Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Several other allegations were also investigated under the Whitewater umbrella. The investigations, which took place during Bill Clinton's presidency and cost an estimated $40 million, resulted in the McDougals being jailed and Webster Hubbell pleading guilty to felony charges of lying to federal investigators about Clinton's role in both Whitewater and the savings and loan failure. No criminal charges were brought against the Clintons themselves, as Robert Ray's final report on September 20, 2000 stated that there was insufficient evidence that either of them had engaged in criminal wrongdoing. [23] -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com