One for the not so swift among us-
 

Gene Kearns wrote:

...This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration.

The term "biostitute" has been appropriately coined.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
If you wish to question Dr. Lindzen's statements, I suggest you first
post proof of credentials of your own which would be considered at least
equal to his. Otherwise, silence is the only option you can employ that
can spare you further ridicule.


Gene Kearns wrote:
Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, and Fred
Singer is your little band of dissidents separated from the prevailing
opinion of other credible scientists, This outspoken group appears to
me to be a small band of industry paid hacks that have sacrificed
science for remuneration. If this is the best you can provide, given
the number of credible scientists working on the problem, you really
don't have much science to back your position up, do you?


You mean like the doctors who used to go on TV in the 50s and 60s to say
that smoking cigarettes was good for you?

DSK


Actually, smoking *is* good for some people in terms of "relaxing" or
"calming the nerves", which is what the 1950's doctors claimed. The links
to cancer, heart disease and other smoking induced problems had not been
made at that time.

Obviously now it is well established that the risks of those problems far
outweigh the "calming" benefit.

RCE

One for the not so swift among us-
 

In article ,
says...

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

No new boat. Maybe a couple of seasons before I can pull it off.

I've had little, if any time to cruise in the past 2 years and I'm still
nose to the grindstone. Hopefully, things will lighten up by next
season and I'll have more time to devote to passions.

In the meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you could ask some of your party-
mates to see what they can do about getting fuel prices a bit lower.
Even if I had time to make a new acquisition, I'm not sure I could
afford to run it...

Hope you're well.

jps

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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".

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

I thought I retired. :)

If my dad's any indication, then don't retire. He's 84, and still runs the
business. He also runs outside people who wish they'd stayed in school
longer after talking to him. Banks visit to offer us lines of credit. They
send the young meat on these errands, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad
for them. My dad teaches them the banking business, including regulations
that might have changed two days earlier. Much of the time, they didn't even
know that a particular category of regulation existed. Must be tough
learning a business when you're 26 and your supervisor is 28.

He was in the hospital for a hip replacement in December. I was there when
some accounting person came to his room to discuss insurance, Medicaid blah
blah whatever. The woman was stumbling badly as she leafed through the
paperwork. My dad went into multi-track mode, analyzing what the Knicks were
doing on TV, tossing in some comments on the architecture of the church
across the street, and directing the lady to specific pages & paragraphs in
her paperwork.

Amazing, but scary. Don't *ever* retire.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

I don't know about you, but a fine cigar after dinner on the deck
listening to the water feature and watching the koi swing around in
the ornamental pond is very relaxing.

Nothing like the fine aroma of a good cigar to set off a pleasant
spring/summer evening.

And as we all know, relaxing is an important part of reducing stress.

So in a way, smoking is good for me. :)

Good for you?? What about stinking out the neighbourhood for blocks
around your house?

Oh come on. I was in a cigar bar last week with a couple of friends. None of
them smelled awful. The place had plenty of moving air, and that's the key.
Almost any burnt substance smells nasty when it just hangs there.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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


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

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their
faith is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door,
attempting to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched
and footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan
rants from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one
or two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly
shredded by the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for
example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our)
habits" is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on
prohibition ("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An
example of prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR;
and example of compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of
summer gasoline (thankfully suspended for this year).


Fritz believes that if we had a sentient being in the White House, and
that person said this...

"I urge all of you to find ways to reduce your fuel consumption.
Reexamine your vehicle buying habits for instanct"

....that this would be an example of someone controlling his behavior.
To any sane person, it's a reasonable request. Not to Fritz.


If you have a problem with Fritz, address that problem with Fritz. Since
you can't identify a problem you have with me, I have nothing to gain by
entertaining your attempts to debate Fritz by using me as a proxy. Come
back when you're rather less confused.


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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

These are controls that you either agree to, or you get the laws changed.
But, we all pick & choose the ones we like, right? I'd be outraged if a
child molester got no jail time, but from his point of view, it would be
perfect. I see ancient vehicles belching clouds of blue smoke and I know
that's perfect for the owners - nobody stops them. I'd like to see them
removed from their vehicles and told that until they can afford to run their
business, which includes vehicle maintenance, they are now officially out of
work.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

And once again, the "faithful" keep proving my point. It is their
own "religion" that must be believed, anyone questioning their faith
is deemed a heritic.
The gullible faithful GW alarmists accept the simple line of "man is
at fault" which conviently fits their political slant as well.



You're as rabid as those you consider to be alarmists. However, you
have, in the past, revealed your reasons for being so: You think some
sort of environmental gestapo will be knocking on your door, attempting
to control your habits.

P. Fritz has posted numerous links to unbiased, properly researched and
footnoted academic journals. The other side has posted partisan rants
from
agenda-ridden loonie farms (one proudly trumpets its most widely read
article as something called "America the Titanic") which all cite one or
two politically-infused "studies" wbich have been thoroughly shredded by
the real academic community (the Mann "hockey stick" for example).

Your description of an "environmental gestapo" "controlling (our) habits"
is quite accurate - all government acts are some variation on prohibition
("You can't do X") or compulsion ("You must do Y"). An example of
prohibition is exploration on seven-one-hundreths of ANWR; and example of
compulsion is the forty-odd different formulations of summer gasoline
(thankfully suspended for this year).

Typical of the "faithful" he knows what others thinks LMAO.
The "faithful" aren't usually so blatant as to knock on doors, because
they would be exposed for what they really are. Instead, they go through
the back window......via taxation.



I know what you think because of what you've clearly said in the past. The
scientists you call "fanatics" have their reasons for believing so strongly
in a theory. You have your reasons for believing the opposite, and those
reasons have absolutely NOTHING to do with being scientifically correct. You
want to stop the research in its tracks because you know it would annoy
people you don't like.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"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?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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?"

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"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.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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"!!!!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.

Exactly!

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

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?


No, I'm saying YOU do.

You said "People who...", and unless you want to start slicing and dicing,
that includes me, you, and everyone else. You made an all-inclusive
statement.

Now that we've established that, you're ready to understand that
hypotheticals are constantly used by the best and the brightest. In Supreme
Court transcripts, the justices will go on for hours, tossing hypothetical
situations at lawyers to test new ideas. Various military & police entities
have hired movie writers to come up with hypothetical scenarios involving
security issues. You don't like hypotheticals because, as in this
conversation, it puts you on the spot. You have to think and come up with an
answer. Oh well.



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.

If the term "your president" is supposed to imply that I either voted for
or support the policies of George W. Bush, you are entirely mistaken.

Hey, if you look, walk, and sound like a duck, don't be surprised to be
called a duck.

Now, onward: Are you capable of answering the question, rather than arguing
about tactics?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

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?

Read my response to Bedroom. GWB is a wretched president. As was
Clinton.
As was Bush pere.


Nice attempt at a dodge. ***ALL*** presidents got involved with issues that
were not part of their mandate. Perhaps half the time, the public was fine
with it. Do *not* try and hijack this discussion by introducing such
nonsense again.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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?


I'll tell you what he would say: Your operating system's keyboard routine
is nothing but a test of hypotheticals. Every IF THEN ENDIF loop is testing
hypotheticals. Tell the people who write these things that they lack
intelligence.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe Sean would like to ask Dr. Hawking directly
what he thinks about the use of hypotheticals:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/cindex.html

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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


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

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?

Read my response to Bedroom. GWB is a wretched president. As was
Clinton.
As was Bush pere.


Nice attempt at a dodge. ***ALL*** presidents got involved with issues
that were not part of their mandate.

Then there was no point in your specifying GWB. Why did you?

To refute your nonsense about how a president shouldn't get involved with
non-constitutional issues, because that was nothing but a tactic you used to
avoid answering my question about what YOU would do about the scientific
discovery I mentioned. Do you still remember? It was less than 90 minutes
ago.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:34:02 GMT, Sean Corbett
wrote:

You wrote:

In article qDvdg.8579$Ar6.6872@trnddc02, says...
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/ne...olingworld.pdf

Yes, and scientific know-how and technology has been drifting backwards
since 1975, right?

Wrong.

But you go ahead and believe what you want. Those of us with a better
sense of responsibility towards those who will come after us will do
what we can to make sure they remain safe.

You sit on your ass and contemplate your navel if that suits you.

Were you aware that Mars' temperature is also rising? Explain this.

Hey, Sean, care to talk about boating.... that is if you *own* a
boat....

... or do you just come here to talk about off topic stuff?

Pot. Kettle. Plonk.

Say goodnight, moron.

Typical..... start losing an argument, and resort to childish and petty
name calling.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


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!


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."

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that left-leaning persons can't
comprehend "initiative".

A beginning or introductory step....
Next?
Please show me where Al Gore said that he "invented the internet".

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


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!


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."

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that left-leaning persons can't
comprehend "initiative".

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?"

THAT'S initiative.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

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


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

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?

Read my response to Bedroom. GWB is a wretched president. As was
Clinton.
As was Bush pere.


Nice attempt at a dodge. ***ALL*** presidents got involved with
issues that were not part of their mandate.

Then there was no point in your specifying GWB. Why did you?

To refute your nonsense about how a president shouldn't get involved
with non-constitutional issues,

What does the presidential oath of office command the president to do?

because that was nothing but a tactic
you used to avoid answering my question about what YOU would do about
the scientific discovery I mentioned. Do you still remember? It was
less than 90 minutes ago.

I answered your question. Ask your mommy to read my answer to you.


Perhaps it would help if you saw some stupid people using hypothetical
arguments to tweeze apart ideas and understand them better:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Mr. Kayatta, if I took a drum of water out of the
river and put it in the garage next to the river for 5 years, and, 5 years
later, came out and poured that drum of water back into the river, is that a
discharge into the river?

MR. KAYATTA: Yes, that would be a discharge into the river.

MR. KAYATTA: There is -- we draw a distinction -- and I'm referring just to
discharge, I'm not addressing the issue that the Court could get to in
another case of whether you actually need a discharge of a pollutant, as to
just a discharge into the river -we draw a distinction between actually
removing something entirely from the river, exercising control over it. Your
hypothetical, Mr. Chief Justice, had it for 5 years. In that situation, one
could say that there may be a discharge into the river when an activity is
proposed to pour that back into the river. In a -- in the dams -- the dams,
the water continuously flows down. The water never leaves the single body of
water called the Presumpscot. And that's the distinction that we would draw.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Even though it's retained in a -- what -- an
impoundment pool, or whatever, behind --

MR. KAYATTA: Well, the dams slow down the water as it comes down the
Presumpscot. And because the dams slow down the water, then the river widens
in an area called an impoundment area. But the -- there is a continuous
motion leaving the dam in the same amount of water that comes into the area
above the dam.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, this --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So, you think it's a different case if it's not a
continuous motion; in other words, that the water is released -- you know,
it's released on the weekends, but, during the week, it has to build up in
the -- you would draw a distinction and say there's a discharge, in that
case?

The rest is he

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...ts/04-1527.pdf

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that left-leaning persons can't
comprehend "initiative".

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?"

THAT'S initiative.


Sean will not respond to the specifics you've provided above. He can't.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:

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

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that left-leaning persons
can't comprehend "initiative".

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?"

THAT'S initiative.


Sean will not respond to the specifics you've provided above. He can't.

Anybody can cut-and-paste quotes from a single website.
And that's all it took to prove you dead wrong.
Now, where IS that quote that you and Rush and Hannity hold so dear??

Who's quoted opinions above do you disagree with?
Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom?
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University?
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen?
Which ones and why?

One for the not so swift among us-
 

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

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?

No, I'm saying YOU do.

You said "People who...", and unless you want to start slicing and dicing,
that includes me, you, and everyone else. You made an all-inclusive
statement.

Now that we've established that, you're ready to understand that
hypotheticals are constantly used by the best and the brightest. In Supreme
Court transcripts, the justices will go on for hours, tossing hypothetical
situations at lawyers to test new ideas. Various military & police entities
have hired movie writers to come up with hypothetical scenarios involving
security issues. You don't like hypotheticals because, as in this
conversation, it puts you on the spot. You have to think and come up with an
answer. Oh well.



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.
If the term "your president" is supposed to imply that I either voted for
or support the policies of George W. Bush, you are entirely mistaken.

Hey, if you look, walk, and sound like a duck, don't be surprised to be
called a duck.

Now, onward: Are you capable of answering the question, rather than arguing
about tactics?


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife
banished you to the spare bedroom?

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife banished
you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife banished
you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.


So you have only used the name "JoeSparebedroom" in rec.boats? Some
people think you are the late great Doug.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife
banished you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.
So you have only used the name "JoeSparebedroom" in rec.boats? Some
people think you are the late great Doug.
Reggie

I said I never had a nickname.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife
banished you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.

So you have only used the name "JoeSparebedroom" in rec.boats? Some
people think you are the late great Doug.


So what happened that you were banished to the Spare Bedroom?
--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

~~ ZOOM~~ right over the head.

THE POINT was that you can just about prove anything you want with any
data set you want.


No ****.

Back in university we used to, just for kicks and because we could
suddenly do statistical analysis with a computer (you wouldn't waste
your time actually calculating this crap), test data sets against
sunspot cycles.

You can make anything (anything we tried anyway), the price of oil, the
state of the stock market, the levels of arsenic in sediments around a
gold deposit, the election of Democratic presidents in the USA,
correlate to sunspot cycles.

That said, global warming and cooling cycles also correlate to sunspot
cycles (surprize!). But in that case, at least, there is an obvious
causal relationship... Well, obvious to some of us.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife
banished you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.

So you have only used the name "JoeSparebedroom" in rec.boats? Some
people think you are the late great Doug.


So what happened that you were banished to the Spare Bedroom?
--
Reggie

WTF are you talking about?


That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Yeah. You do that. And be quiet.

One for the not so swift among us-
 

On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:16:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
...
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers" wrote in message
. ..


Joe,
I have to ask, did you change your Usenet Nick because your wife
banished you to the spare bedroom?
Reggie

I never had a nickname.

So you have only used the name "JoeSparebedroom" in rec.boats? Some
people think you are the late great Doug.


So what happened that you were banished to the Spare Bedroom?
--
Reggie

WTF are you talking about?


That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Yeah. You do that. And be quiet.


Paths don't lie.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

One for the not so swift among us-
 

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:


Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:

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

I guess the confusion comes from the fact that left-leaning
persons can't comprehend "initiative".

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?"

THAT'S initiative.


Sean will not respond to the specifics you've provided above. He
can't.

Anybody can cut-and-paste quotes from a single website.
And that's all it took to prove you dead wrong.
Now, where IS that quote that you and Rush and Hannity hold so dear??

Show where I cited that quote. I'm the one - the ONLY one - here who
posted the ACTUAL quote.


Who's quoted opinions above do you disagree with?

Third graders know the correct word is "whose".

Childish little snips meant to throw someone off, because you know
you've got

Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom?
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University?
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen?

Dr. Lindzen at MIT.

And why?