JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.
Ok, which of these statements is false:
Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.
You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion
Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.

Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to show
you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the discussion.



Is that you Dougie?

I knew you couldn't stay away from the group and the political threads.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.
Ok, which of these statements is false:
Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.
You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion
Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of
heat is the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless
of course you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question
yourself.
Some of my questions to you have gone unanswered. I see no reason to
show you any further courtesy until you learn to keep up with the
discussion.
Examine the thread and you will see who's "keeping up" and who's dodging.

If you can't do the first or refuse to acknowledge the last, I have no use
for you, and I doubt too many others have use for you either.

There aren't THAT many messages in the thread yet. Find the questions I've
asked you, and answer them. Then, perhaps we can continue. Your antics would
not be tolerated in a classroom.

Dougie, it is you. Glad your are back.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

I use him because the two of you are (slightly) functioning as a tag
team. So far, he hasn't begun his standard rant about being controlled,
but it's lurking there. I suspect that behind your facade, you've got
the same issues.

So if that's your problem with him, I take it you're a fascist/socialist
who abhors freedom? That's basically what you're saying if that's your
problem with Fritz.

See? I knew it was lurking there! :-) Another one who only sees extremes.

Let me ask you another question which you will not answer: Let's say that
10 scientists for whom you have nothing but the utmost in respect proved
unequivocally that automobile exhaust was by far the largest human
contribution to global warming. Never mind how it compared to other sources,
like coal-fired power plants. Not trains. Not oil furnaces in peoples'
homes. Not big ships with smelly smokestacks. Only cars.

Let's introduce another interesting factor: Oil companies magically discover
oil deposits larger than they ever imagined, in places where they can obtain
it cheaply, with little environmental risk. Result: Gasoline goes back to
$1.83 a gallon. I'm introducing this idea for a reason, which I may or may
not reveal after you answer the question below.

Something needs to be done about automobile emissions now, and you're
elected to a position where you have the ability to wield some power. What
would you do?

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

I use him because the two of you are (slightly) functioning as a tag
team. So far, he hasn't begun his standard rant about being
controlled, but it's lurking there. I suspect that behind your
facade, you've got the same issues.

So if that's your problem with him, I take it you're a
fascist/socialist who abhors freedom? That's basically what you're
saying if that's your problem with Fritz.

See? I knew it was lurking there! :-) Another one who only sees
extremes.

Let me ask you another question which you will not answer: Let's say
that 10 scientists for whom you have nothing but the utmost in respect
proved unequivocally that automobile exhaust was by far the largest
human contribution to global warming. Never mind how it compared to
other sources, like coal-fired power plants. Not trains. Not oil
furnaces in peoples' homes. Not big ships with smelly smokestacks. Only
cars.

Let's introduce another interesting factor: Oil companies magically
discover oil deposits larger than they ever imagined, in places where
they can obtain it cheaply, with little environmental risk. Result:
Gasoline goes back to $1.83 a gallon. I'm introducing this idea for a
reason, which I may or may not reveal after you answer the question
below.

Something needs to be done about automobile emissions now, and you're
elected to a position where you have the ability to wield some power.
What would you do?

People who constantly deal in hypotheticals are the ones who lack the
intelligence or maturity to process the real world.

So, you're saying that Supreme Court justices lack the aforementioned
intelligence or maturity?



However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the word
"gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil", nor
"environment", my oath of office would compel me to do nothing.

Really? Your president suggests things all the time which he thinks would
make for a better country and a better world, and most of these things are
in no way related to his constitutional mandate. It would be unpatriotic to
not look out for the best interests of this country in every way possible.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".


That's not was Limbaugh says.

Yes, and Limbaugh is wrong. Then every goose stepping republican gets
in line behind him!

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

I use him because the two of you are (slightly) functioning as a tag
team. So far, he hasn't begun his standard rant about being
controlled, but it's lurking there. I suspect that behind your
facade, you've got the same issues.

So if that's your problem with him, I take it you're a
fascist/socialist who abhors freedom? That's basically what you're
saying if that's your problem with Fritz.

See? I knew it was lurking there! :-) Another one who only sees
extremes.

Let me ask you another question which you will not answer: Let's say
that 10 scientists for whom you have nothing but the utmost in respect
proved unequivocally that automobile exhaust was by far the largest
human contribution to global warming. Never mind how it compared to
other sources, like coal-fired power plants. Not trains. Not oil
furnaces in peoples' homes. Not big ships with smelly smokestacks. Only
cars.

Let's introduce another interesting factor: Oil companies magically
discover oil deposits larger than they ever imagined, in places where
they can obtain it cheaply, with little environmental risk. Result:
Gasoline goes back to $1.83 a gallon. I'm introducing this idea for a
reason, which I may or may not reveal after you answer the question
below.

Something needs to be done about automobile emissions now, and you're
elected to a position where you have the ability to wield some power.
What would you do?

People who constantly deal in hypotheticals are the ones who lack the
intelligence or maturity to process the real world.

However, since my copy of the Constitution contains neither the word
"gasoline", nor "global warming", nor "energy", nor "oil", nor
"environment", my oath of office would compel me to do nothing.

Hmm, so you think that everything that GWB does, says, or tries to get
other countries to do is tied directely to the Constitution?

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 May 2006 04:15:00 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".

Bassy, I really don't want to take you to school on this again.

Just drop it.

Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet" period.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 May 2006 04:15:00 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".

Bassy, I really don't want to take you to school on this again.

Just drop it.

For a fine read:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

Which, says in part:
Exhibit A is Al Gore. People eager to lie about him continue to portray
him as a liar. First lie, that he claims to have "invented" the
Internet. Second lie, that he claims to have "discovered" the pollution
of Love Canal. Third lie, that he falsely claims to be the model for
Oliver Barrett IV, hero of Love Story.

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that
he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies
and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with
each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said,
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means
that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that
he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been
manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the
actual language.

For a heady while we hoped that the Bush campaign would prove their man
to be the champion of honesty and integrity that he pretends to be,
especially for those looking for a squeaky clean new White House. A
couple of weeks ago the campaign rejected a shoddy commercial showing
Gore saying that Clinton never told a lie. Problem was that the clip
showed an interview from 1994, long before Clinton ever heard of Monica
Lewinsky.

To his credit, Bush scrapped the commercial before it aired. But as I
write, his campaign is unloading a new commercial, featuring a sneer at
the fragment from the Internet claim, again implying that Gore had
nothing to do with the Internet's creation. At least they got the words
right; it would be dangerous to doctor the tape.

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to
create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice
president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the
Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States
without the strong support given to it and related research areas by
the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as
Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with
making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's
High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave
Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is
today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University,
claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the
importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to
cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 31 May 2006 04:15:00 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:24:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that
we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going
to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of min

Are you discussing the agit-prop "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al "I
invented the Internet" - "Love Story was modeled after Tipper and me"
Gore?

Please - Anyone with an historical perspective and a modicum of
knowledge about metrology and physics will tell you that (1) They
don't have a freakin' clue if there is or isn't "global warming" and
(2) the recent "activity" is more about normal solar/current patterns
than "global warming".

Then again, this is Al "I'm so freakin' smart I scare myself to death"
Gore. :)

Believe what you will, but actually try to understand the varying
opinions from all the respected scientists involved in this debate
rather than Al "The Sky is Falling - or at least Warming Up" Gore.

On another subject, did you buy a new bigger, betterer boat?

Once and for all. Al Gore NEVER said he "invented the internet".

Bassy, I really don't want to take you to school on this again.

Just drop it.

For a fine read:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

Which, says in part:
Exhibit A is Al Gore. People eager to lie about him continue to portray
him as a liar. First lie, that he claims to have "invented" the
Internet. Second lie, that he claims to have "discovered" the pollution
of Love Canal. Third lie, that he falsely claims to be the model for
Oliver Barrett IV, hero of Love Story.

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that
he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies
and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with
each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said,
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means
that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that
he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been
manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the
actual language.

For a heady while we hoped that the Bush campaign would prove their man
to be the champion of honesty and integrity that he pretends to be,
especially for those looking for a squeaky clean new White House. A
couple of weeks ago the campaign rejected a shoddy commercial showing
Gore saying that Clinton never told a lie. Problem was that the clip
showed an interview from 1994, long before Clinton ever heard of Monica
Lewinsky.

To his credit, Bush scrapped the commercial before it aired. But as I
write, his campaign is unloading a new commercial, featuring a sneer at
the fragment from the Internet claim, again implying that Gore had
nothing to do with the Internet's creation. At least they got the words
right; it would be dangerous to doctor the tape.

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to
create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice
president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the
Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States
without the strong support given to it and related research areas by
the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as
Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with
making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's
High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave
Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is
today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University,
claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the
importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to
cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"



So, in other words, Gore said something careless, and continues to get fried
for it. Bush makes careless speech into a virtual religion, and his sheep
say nothing, although in all fairness, it's because his sheep don't notice.

Harry Krause wrote:
Sean Corbett wrote:


People who constantly deal in hypotheticals are the ones who lack the
intelligence or maturity to process the real world.


I wonder what Stephen Hawking would say about that sort of idiotic comment?

He's too dim to even understand what he's just written! Think about
what we wouldn't have today if people like inventors, speculators, etc
didn't "deal in hypotheticals"!!!!