In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:07:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

Now Kevin, it's a fact that you watch Fox much more than I do!

It seems like you have a Fox quote daily.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:07:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.

Now Kevin, it's a fact that you watch Fox much more than I do!

It seems like you have a Fox quote daily.

Maybe kevin does, but I do not.

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

In article m,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

Well, once again and as usual, you are wrong on both.

On 7/31/2012 8:53 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m,
says...

On 7/31/2012 8:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:46:07 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:16:06 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:43:31 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Thanks for posting. It is a good heuristic read, if nothing else (or
should be).

Well, hey...you gotta remember the source.

===

What source is that?

The NYT. If the source of information is a liberal rag, shouldn't it be disregarded?

===

Actually I first saw it on the Weather Underground web site. If they
have any political bias it is news to me. The report itself was
published in scientific circles and has attracted quite a bit of
attention elsewhere. As far as I know no one has tried to discredit
it. The study itself was funded by some folks who are more
conservative than you or I. As I stated previously, it is highly
regrettable when serious issues of science become politicized.

People like John just won't believe science, they only believe what FOX
tells them.


Besides being a Dumbocrat, you are probably a union slave as well. You
are boring and repetitive;just like krause.

Well, once again and as usual, you are wrong on both.

OK, but the second sentence stands.