And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 2 Mar 2004 12:03:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

John H

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:10:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:45:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H

Yeah. Right.

Honest!

Why??? The has no attractive qualities. Were you unimpressed with the other
choices?

I wanted to **** off Wesley Clark. I thought he was a scumbag of the
first order. I even got my wife to vote for Sharpton. I really wanted
Sharpton to get more votes than Clark, but it didn't happen.

If Edwards became the Democrat's choice, I might consider voting for
him. Not Kerry though. I think the alternative, Bush, is still better
than Kerry.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

I'm not playing both sides here, but in fact, most good science IS biased.
Most research begins with a theory and experiments are designed around that
theory. This doesn't detract from the value of the research, especially if
other scientists attack the problem from another angle eventually, which
they usually do.

With regard to pollution, you don't hear many (if any) scientists refuting
results which have been measured repeatedly for the past 20 years. Acid rain
is a perfect example. At this point in history, only idiots don't believe
that it wrecks bodies of water.


Does that mean Rush Limbaugh is an idiot when it comes to the
environment?

And, Doug, how come you're not working???

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

Why??? The has no attractive qualities. Were you unimpressed with the
other
choices?

I wanted to **** off Wesley Clark. I thought he was a scumbag of the
first order. I even got my wife to vote for Sharpton. I really wanted
Sharpton to get more votes than Clark, but it didn't happen.

If Edwards became the Democrat's choice, I might consider voting for
him. Not Kerry though. I think the alternative, Bush, is still better
than Kerry.

Well....I guess if you feel everyone should have equal rights....even
idiots... I prefer a shifty smart person to a dolt, though.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

I'm not playing both sides here, but in fact, most good science IS
biased.
Most research begins with a theory and experiments are designed around
that
theory. This doesn't detract from the value of the research, especially
if
other scientists attack the problem from another angle eventually, which
they usually do.

With regard to pollution, you don't hear many (if any) scientists
refuting
results which have been measured repeatedly for the past 20 years. Acid
rain
is a perfect example. At this point in history, only idiots don't believe
that it wrecks bodies of water.


Does that mean Rush Limbaugh is an idiot when it comes to the
environment?

If he believes acid rain is harmless, then yes, he's an idiot. Scientists
have laced coal with tracer chemicals in Ohio power plants and found it in
bodies of water in upstate NY. The rest is simple: Some fish don't live at
certain pH levels. End of story.


And, Doug, how come you're not working???

I'm multitasking.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:11:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Mar 2004 12:03:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

John H

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"John H" wrote in message
...

Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

John H

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last
week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of
mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something
else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

It's a mystery! We need a Vulcan to solve this one.

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:43:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

John H

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last
week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of
mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something
else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

It's a mystery! We need a Vulcan to solve this one.

I finished my income taxes, electronically filed them, and now I've
got to fix dinner. The wife will be home from work soon, and I can't
show her all this stuff as a reason for not cooking!

Have a good day!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:36:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

Why??? The has no attractive qualities. Were you unimpressed with the
other
choices?

I wanted to **** off Wesley Clark. I thought he was a scumbag of the
first order. I even got my wife to vote for Sharpton. I really wanted
Sharpton to get more votes than Clark, but it didn't happen.

If Edwards became the Democrat's choice, I might consider voting for
him. Not Kerry though. I think the alternative, Bush, is still better
than Kerry.

Well....I guess if you feel everyone should have equal rights....even
idiots... I prefer a shifty smart person to a dolt, though.


I agree with the shifty smart person, but I don't think Bush is a
dolt. I think he just can't speak publicly. He does OK when he's
reading, and he did learn to fly an F-102. That takes some smarts.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

John H wrote:

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H


Which just proves what a sleaze you are, because if you did vote for
Sharpton, you voted in the Democratic primary, and since you are a
Republican, you cast your vote as a would-be spoiler.