ACP wrote:
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


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

ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes
of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it,
Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Wow, that's asking an awful lot. 8)

I'm telling you, with infatuation like that, Dan's going to get
jealous........

basskisser wrote:
ACP wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...

ACP wrote:

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
news:5c56o2hilt5qt5jhp5kqm6iup6eemjjfe7@ 4ax.com...

A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes
of
Bassy.
8)

Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it,
Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Wow, that's asking an awful lot. 8)


I'm telling you, with infatuation like that, Dan's going to get
jealous........


Maybe Dan & ACP can get together & practice some touchy/feely infatuation.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


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

ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the
likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch
it, Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!


Maybe Jack's reply was sarcasm? Not unheard of around here.

ACP wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


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

ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the
likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch
it, Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!


Maybe Jack's reply was sarcasm? Not unheard of around here.

Nope. If it were, he'd have said so from the beginning instead of
trying to defend himself.

It's nice to see that your infatuation with me is growing daily!

Don White wrote:
basskisser wrote:
ACP wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...

ACP wrote:

"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
news:5c56o2hilt5qt5jhp5kqm6iup6eemjjfe7@ 4ax.com...

A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes
of
Bassy.
8)

Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it,
Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Wow, that's asking an awful lot. 8)


I'm telling you, with infatuation like that, Dan's going to get
jealous........


Maybe Dan & ACP can get together & practice some touchy/feely infatuation.

Hmm, could be. I'd have thought jealousy would get in the way, but you
never know. People with infatuation complexes do strange things!

On 16 Dec 2006 15:28:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


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

ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it, Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!

So you weren't able to answer the questions I posed, huh? That's OK,
I didn't think you would, or could. Let me explain, try to follow
along, put your finger on the screen and move your lips as you read,
if it helps.

The two foot globe statement wasn't informative, other than being a
somewhat interesting excercise in scaling. Its intention in Gore's
"movie" is to grab your attention and scare you, as in "Oh my! The
earth's atmosphere is only as think as a layer of varnish! We better
do something!"

My weather statement was made to point out that the two foot globe,
while interesting, has no relevance to the earth we inhabit and its
own atmosphere. You see, with our full sized molecules, and the laws
of nature that they must abide by, "weather" wouldn't even be possible
in an atmosphere as thick as "a coat of varnish".

In reality, our earth is about 7926 MILES in diameter, which is
something over 41 MILLION feet, not 2 feet. Its atmosphere has 5
layers, and the one we live in, the troposphere, is about 10 MILES
thick. The 5th layer extends out to about 6000 MILES. A little
thicker and more substantial than a coat of varnish, huh?

In short, the two foot globe statement was a cheap and irrelevant
scare tactic designed to grab the more simple of those among us. My
weather statement exposed it for what it was.

But hey, the scare tactic worked on you, didn't it.

Merry Christmas.

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 15:28:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html
The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it, Dan
will get jealous.
The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?
What a stupid question.
Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.
No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.
What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.
Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!

So you weren't able to answer the questions I posed, huh? That's OK,
I didn't think you would, or could. Let me explain, try to follow
along, put your finger on the screen and move your lips as you read,
if it helps.

The two foot globe statement wasn't informative, other than being a
somewhat interesting excercise in scaling. Its intention in Gore's
"movie" is to grab your attention and scare you, as in "Oh my! The
earth's atmosphere is only as think as a layer of varnish! We better
do something!"

My weather statement was made to point out that the two foot globe,
while interesting, has no relevance to the earth we inhabit and its
own atmosphere. You see, with our full sized molecules, and the laws
of nature that they must abide by, "weather" wouldn't even be possible
in an atmosphere as thick as "a coat of varnish".

In reality, our earth is about 7926 MILES in diameter, which is
something over 41 MILLION feet, not 2 feet. Its atmosphere has 5
layers, and the one we live in, the troposphere, is about 10 MILES
thick. The 5th layer extends out to about 6000 MILES. A little
thicker and more substantial than a coat of varnish, huh?

In short, the two foot globe statement was a cheap and irrelevant
scare tactic designed to grab the more simple of those among us. My
weather statement exposed it for what it was.

But hey, the scare tactic worked on you, didn't it.

Merry Christmas.
Jack,
You will never convince Bassy of anything, he is cluttering up this NG
with crap, trolling for fights. It is time to ignore his posts and hope
he disappears. The NG has gotten much better, but Bass is doing his
best to screw it up.

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 15:28:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:


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

ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html

The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it, Dan
will get jealous.

The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon


What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

What a stupid question.

Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.

No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.

What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.

Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!

So you weren't able to answer the questions I posed, huh?

Oh, good God!! How can I answer it any more concise??????
That's OK,
I didn't think you would, or could. Let me explain, try to follow
along, put your finger on the screen and move your lips as you read,
if it helps.

The two foot globe statement wasn't informative, other than being a
somewhat interesting excercise in scaling. Its intention in Gore's
"movie" is to grab your attention and scare you, as in "Oh my! The
earth's atmosphere is only as think as a layer of varnish! We better
do something!"

No, it's intention is to give you the facts. If you aren't bright
enough to grasp the fact, that is YOUR problem.

My weather statement was made to point out that the two foot globe,
while interesting, has no relevance to the earth we inhabit and its
own atmosphere.

Sure it does. Just as much as a scale drawing of a house is a
representation of that house. It's really simple.

You see, with our full sized molecules, and the laws
of nature that they must abide by, "weather" wouldn't even be possible
in an atmosphere as thick as "a coat of varnish".

It's a SCALE for God's sake!!! No one ever, ever said that the earth's
atmosphere is as thick as a coat of varnish.

In reality, our earth is about 7926 MILES in diameter, which is
something over 41 MILLION feet, not 2 feet. Its atmosphere has 5
layers, and the one we live in, the troposphere, is about 10 MILES
thick. The 5th layer extends out to about 6000 MILES. A little
thicker and more substantial than a coat of varnish, huh?

SCALE.......... Again, NO ONE EVER SAID THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE WAS AS
THICK AS A COAT OF VARNISH. What WAS said, I take you can't grasp, is
if you scaled the earth down to a 2 foot sphere, the atmosphere, when
scaled down accordingly, would be as thick as a coat of varnish. Jeez.

In short, the two foot globe statement was a cheap and irrelevant
scare tactic designed to grab the more simple of those among us. My
weather statement exposed it for what it was.

No, it was information. It's a shame that some people are too dumb to
be able to correlate that scale to the earth.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:17:34 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 15:28:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 11:29:04 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On 16 Dec 2006 06:58:34 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:12:23 -0500, "Dixon"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
ACP wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message
...
A Not Al Gore Production.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20061215a.html
The pseudonym isn't going to protect from the wrath of the likes of
Bassy.
8)
Man, talk about an infatuation with me......You'd better watch it, Dan
will get jealous.
The
atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two feet in
dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish.
Dixon

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?
What a stupid question.
Only if you're not thinking creatively.

Oh, um, nevermind. It's over your head.
No. It was just an idiotic question. Want to know why? Simple, because
you took a statement that was informative too literally. It's called
perspective, something I take you don't have.
What exactly did I take literally, and how so? Be specific, and
explain what exactly you think my statement meant, at least to you.
Oh, hell. Are you so out of it that you don't even remember the
sentence you were making your idiotic remark about??? Well, here it is
again:

"The atmosphere seems almost infinitely thick to us, but on a globe two
feet in dia. it would be as thick as a coat of varnish."

With me so far? Come on, it's not really difficult, even for you, is
it?? Okay, here was your idiotic reply, too, just in case you've lost
THAT in your little mind:

What's the weather like on your two foot in diameter world?

Now, how could anybody think that that was an intelligent question?
Hmm, something tells me that YOU think it is!

So you weren't able to answer the questions I posed, huh? That's OK,
I didn't think you would, or could. Let me explain, try to follow
along, put your finger on the screen and move your lips as you read,
if it helps.

The two foot globe statement wasn't informative, other than being a
somewhat interesting excercise in scaling. Its intention in Gore's
"movie" is to grab your attention and scare you, as in "Oh my! The
earth's atmosphere is only as think as a layer of varnish! We better
do something!"

My weather statement was made to point out that the two foot globe,
while interesting, has no relevance to the earth we inhabit and its
own atmosphere. You see, with our full sized molecules, and the laws
of nature that they must abide by, "weather" wouldn't even be possible
in an atmosphere as thick as "a coat of varnish".

In reality, our earth is about 7926 MILES in diameter, which is
something over 41 MILLION feet, not 2 feet. Its atmosphere has 5
layers, and the one we live in, the troposphere, is about 10 MILES
thick. The 5th layer extends out to about 6000 MILES. A little
thicker and more substantial than a coat of varnish, huh?

In short, the two foot globe statement was a cheap and irrelevant
scare tactic designed to grab the more simple of those among us. My
weather statement exposed it for what it was.

But hey, the scare tactic worked on you, didn't it.

Merry Christmas.
Jack,
You will never convince Bassy of anything, he is cluttering up this NG
with crap, trolling for fights. It is time to ignore his posts and hope
he disappears. The NG has gotten much better, but Bass is doing his
best to screw it up.

True... you're right. I'm not going to get in a prolonged argument
over this. I just felt I should explain myself, since he was so
infatuated with my original post (that was a followup to someone else,
not him) that he felt he had to start this up.

Besides, it's 73 degrees here today, and we're getting ready to drive
the Torino down to the marina and go out on the boat for a while.

Have a good one!

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


Jack,
You will never convince Bassy of anything, he is cluttering up this NG
with crap, *trolling for fights*. It is time to ignore his posts and hope
he disappears. The NG has gotten much better, but Bass is *doing his
best to screw it up*.


Yet here you are doing exactly what you accuse Basskisser of doing.
eg: *trolling for fights*
*doing his best to screw it up*.