Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

On Jan 22, 10:28*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 227a52b3-1159-4c95-a5e7-09d0d10c4b38
@f12g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jan 22, 4:56*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:57:50 -0500, I am Tosk

wrote:
In article 54be44c8-23c0-4e48-91c3-ad40485090f7
, says...

On Jan 22, 9:28*am, I am Tosk wrote:
In article 1847b9af-2399-4ea9-a5db-
, says...

On Jan 21, 4:09 pm, "*e#c" wrote:
On Jan 21, 2:23 pm, I am Tosk wrote:

In article 5085f1b0-0281-40be-adaa-
, says...

Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?

YOU SAYIN' I TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUS!?? YOU OVERSIZED ROLLY POLLY
CATAPILLAR LOOKING, SMELLY, STATIONWAGON DRIVIN', REPUBLICAN, FUNDIE...

There goes THAT friendship (if there was one).

You left out , "REDNECK, NRA GUN LOVIN' CHRISTIAN" between republican
and fundie.

?;^ )

Well, I could have just called you ugly and been done with it too;)

Scotty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well... why didn't you? Of coure, you can add that to the list.

?;^ )

Well, I did find a picture of you goin' varm'it huntin'

http://www.costaricapages.com/panama/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2008/12/redneck1.jpg

of course if you remember, that day didn't quite go as planned:

http://findingrefugeinyou.files.word.../rednecks3.jpg

Sorry...

Scotty

That looks like Tom up there on the hood.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

But I don't think he has dark hair (maybe, maybe not) and a mustache
(again, maybe, maybe not)

So I guess I'm still the candidate. *?;^

Uh, no... NO MUSTACHE!!! Tom doesn't do cop face;) And yes, he has
lighter hair.. You liked those pics huh? *;)

Sure! Why not? I don't have many portraits of myself.

?;^ o

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?



Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I
find
it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have
many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we
all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that
there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually discovered
by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035...
and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk
the
actual science.



A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.


When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So, basically,
you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that renown scientists
are wrong or lying or ?


...when Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Its significance has
diminished - forever.


And, travelling back to the beginning of time also I suppose. If you can't
make a logical argument, stay out of the street.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?


Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I
find it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have
many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we
all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that
there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually
discovered by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035...
and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk the
actual science.


A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.


When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So,
basically, you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that
renown scientists are wrong or lying or ?



Bruce's CV is a blank sheet of paper.

I graduated from MIT. And you?


Is that on the east coast?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

Bruce wrote:
Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...


Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?


Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling.
I find it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I
have many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet
we all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was
that there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually
discovered by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs
2035... and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk the
actual science.


A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no
longer relevant.


When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So,
basically, you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that
renown scientists are wrong or lying or ?



Bruce's CV is a blank sheet of paper.

I graduated from MIT. And you?

I attended clown college, in Kansas of all places. I learned to be a
great spella. Afore that I attended a 98% African American high school
in New Haven Connecticut.

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?


Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I
find it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have
many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we
all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that
there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually
discovered by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035...
and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk the
actual science.


A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.

When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So,
basically, you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that
renown scientists are wrong or lying or ?


Bruce's CV is a blank sheet of paper.
I graduated from MIT. And you?


Is that on the east coast?

Google it dip****.

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

And, travelling back to the beginning of time also I suppose. If you can't
make a logical argument, stay out of the street.

That door swings both ways, dip****.

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

In article , Bruce846
@gmail.com says...

I am Tosk wrote:
In article5085f1b0-0281-40be-adaa-
, says...

Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?

YOU SAYIN' I TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUS!?? YOU OVERSIZED ROLLY POLLY
CATAPILLAR LOOKING, SMELLY, STATIONWAGON DRIVIN', REPUBLICAN, FUNDIE...

How do you know he's smelly? Ever meet him?

No, but I can smell him from here!

Scotty

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

In article , Bruce846
@gmail.com says...

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?



Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I find it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually discovered by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035... and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to debunk the
actual science.


A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.

Really, I got up a while ago and went in the bathroom and left a loaf of
Nobel Peace Prize there... Flushed twice as it is a looooooong way to
Washington DC.

Scotty

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


nom=de=plume wrote:


wrote in message
...



Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?




Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I
find
it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have
many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we
all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that
there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually discovered
by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035...
and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk
the
actual science.




A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.


When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So, basically,
you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that renown scientists
are wrong or lying or ?



...when Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. Its significance has
diminished - forever.


And, travelling back to the beginning of time also I suppose. If you can't
make a logical argument, stay out of the street.


Logical? It was very poignant.

Scotty and John Can Have At It.
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

Harry wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...


Guys. Why do you take this stuff so seriously. Enough to ruin
friendshps?

Is it really worth it?



Tim, I'm not friends with anyone here. I've seen sniping from both
sides,
but the continued lying about checkable facts is really appalling. I
find it
hard to believe that these two (or three) are actually friends. I have
many
friends who are much more conservative on social issues than I, yet we
all
make an honest effort to cite facts as facts and opinion as opinion.

The global warming thing is a prime example. Some recent news was that
there
were several factual errors in a comprehensive report about global
warming
(done by Nobel-winning scientists). The errors were actually
discovered by
scientists familiar with the issues... typos such as 2350 vs 2035...
and
none of the errors materially change the conclusions of this important
paper. Yet, yet... this is now going to be used as another way to
debunk the
actual science.



A Nobel prize has been diluted and those who have won it are no longer
relevant.


When, pray tell, was it diluted? Before Obama received it? So,
basically, you have nothing of substance to say, except claim that
renown scientists are wrong or lying or ?



Bruce's CV is a blank sheet of paper.

I graduated from MIT. And you?


Is that on the east coast?


Unless they moved it.