Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:42:02 -0400, Bert Robbins
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html
They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they
interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered
your stance on something when you've been given proof that your
previous mindset was wrong?

Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a
mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit.

Bert, why don't you post where in the NAS's report they have revised
any data from 400 years to 2000 years.

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.

Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?


Since you are relying on them for the "facts," why don't you explain
the accuracy of their article:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....07o4imol.html
which was posted the same day as the NSA report?

No I am not relying upon Brietbart, I am relying upon their sources
which are AP and AFP (http://www.afp.com/english/afp/?pid=history) for
the ariticles I referenced and the one you referenced.
"AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by
Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism.
Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching
thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies
from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington,
Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee
top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of
clients in each region."

They really seem to be challenged by the facts as much as Santorum
was. You guys just don't value fact checking prior to disclosure very
much do you?

Gene you have stuck both feet in your mouth this time. If one of your
left wing buddies had posted eigher

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.

Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?

OK - let me get this straight:

- If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a
scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented
what he had told you?

It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and
(dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source.
Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that
the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that
change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a
dis-information section of the RNC?

OK - let me get this straight:

- If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a
scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented
what he had told you?

Yes.

It's a simple question. Yes, or no.

Asked and answered.