Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2007 General Board Posts >> Anyone see the NOVA special last night
        
(Message started by: 1stdonna on Sep 5th, 2007, 2:24pm)
Title: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by 1stdonna on Sep 5th, 2007, 2:24pm
on global diming and warming?
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Karla on Sep 5th, 2007, 2:49pm
No what did it have to say?  Inquiring minds want to know.
Title: nRe: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by thomas on Sep 5th, 2007, 2:52pm
No, I didn't.  Was it any good?
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Brewcrew on Sep 5th, 2007, 4:14pm
Let me guess. The globe is dimming and warming.

(Sorry, the Mr. Smartypants in me comes out once in awhile.) ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by echo on Sep 5th, 2007, 4:34pm

on 09/05/07 at 16:14:51, Brewcrew wrote:
Let me guess. The globe is dimming and warming.

(Sorry, the Mr. Smartypants in me comes out once in awhile.) ;)


I thought it was that the planet was not as bright or as cool.  Could be wrong.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Brewcrew on Sep 5th, 2007, 4:44pm

on 09/05/07 at 16:34:07, echo wrote:
I thought it was that the planet was not as bright or as cool.  Could be wrong.

Mr. Smartypants II
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:02pm
It's global diming you guys.  Five people probably put in their two cents about global warming.  Altogether, they could only thinly cover the many global aspects in the time allotted yet keeping it from seeming a belittling dime-a-dozen affair but which might nickel-and-dime us with regulations.  

no, I didn't see it, but if it was about becoming dim, I've noticed that happening lately with my posts.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Brewcrew on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:04pm
I pray to God Donna comes back soon and gets this thread back on track.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Jonny on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:11pm
Has anyone seen the email that compares Al Gores house to Bushs house?

The email even asks you to go to snoops.com and see if its real (I havent done that)

Maybe I post it after Donna speaks. ;;D
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Mosaicwench on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:32pm
Jonny - you mean this one?

Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"

Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh-guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

SNOPES.COM finds this NOT to be an urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Mosaicwench on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:36pm
Or better yet - THIS ONE:

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."


SNOPES again:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Jonny on Sep 5th, 2007, 5:48pm
These were the pics in my email.

Gores house.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7d724b3127ccebb2d20eb3baa00000026108AZM2bNk5bM6

Bushs house.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7d724b3127ccebb2d20e0ba9100000026108AZM2bNk5bM6

With your text, Pat......Nuff said!!!!  ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 6:02pm

on 09/05/07 at 17:32:07, Mosaicwench wrote:
"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.



And I agree, he should be publically addressed on this issue.

However, despite what truth involved, if remarks are made and verified, they should be by a legitimate organization.  (the reference from above article).


Quote:
Tennessee Center for Policy Research



according to the Tennessee Department of Revenue, TCPR is "not a legitimate organization."


Funding

The TCPR is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization but does not disclose the sources of funding on its website.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tennessee_Center_for_Policy_Research



John Rodgers, "Dept. of Revenue says conservative think tank 'not a legitimate group'," Nashville, TN's The City Paper Online, February 16, 2007.

(the org. is also in favor of a "crack tax" )

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/~citypaper/news.php?viewStory=54656
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 7:15pm
I appologize for a delay in abetting any info here, access to this site was temporarily impaired.


From sourcewatch.org link above:


Quote:
Drew Johnson serves as the center's president, and seeks to bring his public policy experience with Washington-based groups like the National Taxpayers Union and the American Enterprise Institute a little closer to home.



A little about this organization...





http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute


Quote:
Tobacco issues

In 1980, the American Enterprise Institute for the sum of $25,000 produced a study in support of the tobacco industry titled, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Regulation: Consumer Products.

The report was part of the global tobacco industry's 1980s Social Costs/Social Values Project, carried out to refute emerging social cost arguments against smoking.


(another issue it's involved with raising dubious motivation for involvement)

Casting Doubt on Global Warming

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent." [7]

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.



However Mr. Gore is hypocritical, and besides truth inherently presented, I do not trust the source or motivation of the accusing organizations.  Give me another source of info that will seem objective.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 5th, 2007, 8:06pm
Here is what aggravates me about these type of so called "scientifically proven" issues:

 First of all, they are NOT proven absolutely. Good theory? Well, sure I guess it is. But since very few of us are climatologists or earth science experts, how the hell would we know anyways.

  So far I have seen some "actual" proven facts. These are that one leading global warming scientist recently admitted to falsifying his "findings" His rationale was that he was just so sure he was right and people "needed to see the truth" that he kinda....well...lets say "skewed" the facts.

 Think about it people. You are essentially being called a dumbass.
 These geniuses know what is better for you...damn the facts. You are just too stupid to look objectively at facts and decide for yourself.

  Our own damn Gooberment treats us like this....subjects !!!  We know what is best for you, shut up & listen.
 It is precisely this type of arrogance I despise !!!

   No one seems to question things, they just go with whatever they are told. This is why I write on our Constitution in hopes that someone will give a damn....cept no one seems to.

   Remember when Ross Perot debated. The other two had smug little looks on their faces as if to summarily dismiss everything he said...an arrogance I find hideous.
The question is not if Ross is the man for you. He makes some good points that transcend politics. He said "They (the Govt.) work for us, we do not work for them" Hmmmm, what a kool new concept...but I digress.

  Heres how a dumb old metalworker looks at this:
You have an apparent problem. You study the problem WITHOUT bias or agenda. You come to an absolute  proven conclusion....backed up with scientific PROOF beyond reproach. You take steps to solve said problem. Now, if you got 2 brain cells to rub together, you would see that this rationale is what is called "business problem solving" That is: 1) identify the problem 2) pinpoint the problem 3) systematically eliminate the problem.

 So damn simple, a caveman could do it.
You don't run around in a panic. Keep in mind, some scientists are incredibly arrogant. Oh, they have all the answers...don't they. So damn sure T-Rex walked upright, only to later go: OOPS, my bad...guess the big fella walks kinda slouched over. Remember the 60's anti-salt tripe the Gooberment spent millions to sell you. OOPS, well I guess salt in moderation for healthy people is perfectly fine.
Oh my God!!!! Were all gonna die !!! Quick, get in the hybrid, go to your sensitivity class, watch out for s.a.r.s.

  Hell, scientists are so smart, they can make a Universe from two turd atoms colliding together from absolute nothingness....yup they got it all figured out.


 What I'm trying to say is, we are not being prudent and seldom are. Is it plausible? You bet !!! Is it proven absolutely?...not enough for me to start parroting what internet Al says.
Just my opinion. Feel free to over-react anytime you like, there may be mold spores growing on tree bark near you just waiting to infect you with staccibotris.

Dave
 
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Jonny on Sep 5th, 2007, 8:29pm

on 09/05/07 at 19:15:01, Kevin_M wrote:
 Give me another source of info that will seem objective.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/19/nasa-s-hansen-says-global-warming-skeptics-are-court-jesters-working-

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 9:32pm

on 09/05/07 at 20:06:18, assaultme wrote:
But since very few of us are climatologists or earth science experts, how the hell would we know anyways.  
 

By reading a lot, many points of view, and deciding what makes sense.  
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:14pm
You bet Kevin. Thats a good place to start. Glad you use critical thinking, it's in short supply these days.

  If I might expound on my statement.....It really doesn't matter if I spend 4 years studying this issue. Meaning a masters degree which is what it takes to have the actual technical insight to fully understand the complexities of earth science. I'm not in charge of this issue.

 I have read a little on it and quite frankly, I am not convinced yet. So I guess thats my extent of critical thinking on the subject....jury's out.  At the very least, I am objective about it. It  does bother me that I see a lot of people in power going around coming to conclusions and demanding we start taking action. This to me is irresponsible.  

 It really doesn't matter what Dave thinks about it. Dave doesn't decide where you spend you tax dollars. They are spent by irresponsible people. So, it's great if people want to spend time to research this subject, but I don't think it will change the root problem I have just outlined. Just judging by past history.

However, I do like your way of independent thinking. Actually what you said sums up what I would like people to do...think for themselves. I am concerned that it wont change the way the subject is being approached by those who will decide.
Cheers, Dave
     
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:20pm

on 09/05/07 at 20:29:54, Jonny wrote:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/19/nasa-s-hansen-says-global-warming-skeptics-are-court-jesters-working-


Jonny, thank you for the effort and point made

This one is a blog, an opinion, just like mine or yours.




Quote:
They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill....

So, folks like McIntyre, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, *...  and all those around the world including myself who are exposing the flaws in the anthropogenic global warming myth are jesters deceiving the public.

(*notorious oil funded refuters that I know of.)


Noel Sheppard is an economist



Quote:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
Richard Feynman


Now this man's words I trust, and have no qualms with self-criticism in science.  




http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Another blog, as in opinion reached from what might be a skewed interest in material read.  A small point in the big picture anyway.   Like finding a wrong stitch in a quilt.  No reason to throw the quilt away.



http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

Similar, means a certain point could have been gotten wrong upon closer inspection.  Doesn't mean it is not happening.  Perhaps because it is not proven beyond a doubt yet doesn't mean it is all benign.  


I'm not refuting any evidence given, jonny, I just believe we can see water pollution, some air pollution, destruction of rain forests... why is it so hard to believe something is happening on a grander scale, which we can hardly change, but say it is not real.

Thanks jonny for saying something that retains substance but what is the reality?  Is it all benign or are we fucking up for profits in pockets and can't change that?  Should we find out?

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Charlie on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:23pm
Kevin's right about AEI and about others hiring "scientists" and others to undermine things that get in the way making fast bucks without conscience. In my 61 years, I've never seen anything like it.

Even the moron occupying 1600 gave up denying that things are getting a bit sticky. Not that it didn't make him and his crew think twice when okaying coal mining by scraping down mountaintops which is the easy way to mine the filthiest of fossil fuels.

It's easy to deny or belittle. It requires no proof and is entertaining to Rush Limbaugh fans.

Charlie
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:34pm

on 09/05/07 at 22:14:38, assaultme wrote:
It really doesn't matter if I spend 4 years studying this issue. Meaning a masters degree which is what it takes to have the actual technical insight to fully understand the complexities of earth science.


How about 1200 scientists with different masters and PhD's studying and working now on the subject.  That's what it takes to put it together, not one person, or a couple with a refuting opinion.  The complete picture is being assembled.  So far evidence is there is something to it.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:40pm

on 09/05/07 at 20:06:18, assaultme wrote:
Hell, scientists are so smart, they can make a Universe from two turd atoms colliding together from absolute nothingness....yup they got it all figured out.


That's a new on me.  Atoms were formed about 300,00 years after the present theory of universe conception, and could not have formed earlier..
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Brewcrew on Sep 5th, 2007, 10:53pm
If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

(Merely a colloquialism, not based in scientific fact, so I'll stay to the sidelines on the intellectual part of this discussion, thank you very much.)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 5th, 2007, 11:03pm
Ok Kevin. I'm happy that you have this all figured out. I don't pretend to. I am not a scientist. I do see some other scientists saying different. Now I see that it is some kind of political issue for people. That is sad.

 I try to be objective. So, the majority say it is so. Thats fine. Don't the other scientists opinions deserve some consideration? Doesn't seem very objective to me to just dismiss the other side.

 Like I said, I don't know if it is some real acute problem, some kind of climate change that happens over time or whatever.  But I do see people coming to conclusions really quickly when there are still conflicting opinions.

 You can believe what you want, I don't have the scientific expertise to refute anything, nor would that have any usefulness. I am trying to say that I think we are not being prudent enough. I don't care which school of thought is right. I am concerned that we may do something hasty tho. That is surely a valid concern. That is my concern, not if some political party proves the other wrong.We have been over reacting and doing hasty things as long as I can remember.

 To me, when something is proven conclusively, the other scientist's opinions would no longer have any validity. Jeez, relax guys. Is it not logical to spend a little more time understanding something  before we (the Govt.) start fixing it?

Cheers, Dave
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 5th, 2007, 11:05pm

on 09/05/07 at 22:40:35, Kevin_M wrote:
That's a new on me.  Atoms were formed about 300,00 years after the present theory of universe conception, and could not have formed earlier..



 Oh Kevin....I was being facetious. Now you funny too ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 11:08pm

on 09/05/07 at 22:53:40, Brewcrew wrote:
If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.


(Merely a colloquialism, not based in scientific fact, so I'll stay to the sidelines on the intellectual part of this discussion, thank you very much.)


An enlightening insight nonetheless.   ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 5th, 2007, 11:55pm

on 09/05/07 at 23:03:44, assaultme wrote:
Now I see that it is some kind of political issue for people. That is sad.


Sad, but they are in charge of changing things, and they are influenced, now and who knows how long.

 
Quote:
I try to be objective. So, the majority say it is so. Thats fine. Don't the other scientists opinions deserve some consideration? Doesn't seem very objective to me to just dismiss the other side.


When it is can be convinciningly argued it is all not so, without huge fossil fuel funding, objectively, the willingness to hear every case is there, but must be intensively peer reviewed also and make sense with the big picture.    



Quote:
But I do see people coming to conclusions really quickly when there are still conflicting opinions.


Not at all quick conclusions.  Massive, extensive, and long studied in evolving.  Many several sciences are involved and they must fit together or be possibly considered unreasoned well.



Quote:
I am concerned that we may do something hasty tho. That is surely a valid concern. That is my concern, not if some political party proves the other wrong.We have been over reacting and doing hasty things as long as I can remember.


Worry not.  Isn't anything that will be hastily acted upon by politics.  Majority rules and that will take prospective politicians stumping because it might get them in office.  Once they are there, things change.



Quote:
To me, when something is proven conclusively, the other scientist's opinions would no longer have any validity.


That has been a problem.  One or two paid scientists have equal press with their opinions within the same article thousands say otherwise.  Certain interests make sure their side is ABUNDANTLY heard, and also lobby politicians heavily for maintaining the status quo, advantagiously.  There is money to trump ANYTHING someone might say when it might infringe upon a lucrative standing, which will not go down without a tremendous fight to the finish.



Quote:
Oh Kevin....I was being facetious.


I understand, you were trying to make a point, the example went beyond what was a recognized sure footing in doing so, that's all, it was just a standout to me that was hard to pass up..  
  Be there may theories of universe creation and evolution, atoms were not there in any of them at the beginning.  Mattel had a recall on them if there was.  ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 6th, 2007, 12:28am
But I am concerned Kevin. Again & again we have been fed junk and only later to find out we spent money on junk.

 I am not saying we need to blow it off. I am simply saying we don't need to become hasty....just like we have a thousand times before. I don't have to know anything about the climate to feel this is a valid concern. It is a fact. Where was all this wonderful enlightenment and majority rules thing when we did all the stupid things we have done in the past?

  I appreciate you telling me to worry not...politics wont have effect. Honestly, judging from past facts, I cannot be so sure.

  We have become incredibly arrogant in this country. We think we know everything. We go around trying to run everyones lives when we cant even clean up the turds in our own back yard. We run & jump and do stupid things without thinking it through. We all know this, it is an undisputed fact.

 Whats that got to do with global warming? Well, it is the basis of my whole opinion on the subject.  My concerns are valid. What I would like to see is us be prudent and take whatever time is necessary to fully investigate, pinpoint, then solve if necessary. It is not enough for me to believe in some majority rules, everything will be slammin' thing.

  You know what I was talking about. Tease me about my lack of knowledge on atoms all you want. But honestly, there is a lot of arrogance out there.  I think most people are really put off by that attitude (the arrogant thing) much less than the fact I don't know the atomic weight of Strontium. At least I attempt to see things through the eyes of others, not in a myopic "I have all the answers" thing.

  Recent history hasn't been too reassuring as it pertains to our ability to make sound and pragmatic decisions.

 I sincerely hope you are right. It would be nice for once to  not let stupid politics get in the way of problem solving.
 Guess we will just have to wait & see eh?
Cheers, Dave
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 1:55am

on 09/06/07 at 00:28:32, assaultme wrote:
But I am concerned Kevin. Again & again we have been fed junk


There's one way to decide that, read what has been discovered, and chemical reactions, then see what is convincing.



 
Quote:
I am not saying we need to blow it off. I am simply saying we don't need to become hasty....just like we have a thousand times before.


Some things considered hasty were warranted.  Seat belts, that thing under your car for emissions  ;;), chloroflorocarbons eating the ozone, asbestos, lead based paint, mercury thermometers, TB shots, drunk driving, even 5mph bumpers causing much less stylish cars in '74.  Not to mention environmenal changes and nuclear reactor regulations enacted.  Perhaps the Declaration of Independence was hasty, but damn well needed.  Can this be inconceivable different?




Quote:
Where was all this wonderful enlightenment and majority rules thing when we did all the stupid things we have done in the past?


Majority rules once we realize we have done things that cause harm.  Not realizing it in the first place or at one time being a very small minority that thought so until it builds seems to be the process.


Quote:
I appreciate you telling me to worry not...politics wont have effect. Honestly, judging from past facts, I cannot be so sure.


You're right.  Politics can act in a timely manner but I feel not on this issue so effectively.  Opinion.

 

Quote:
We have become incredibly arrogant in this country. We think we know everything. We go around trying to run everyones lives when we cant even clean up the turds in our own back yard. We run & jump and do stupid things without thinking it through. We all know this, it is an undisputed fact.


Mistakes can be made, they can be reversed too.  I remember drinking legal at 18 and 55 mph speed limits, no longer.  More control over people's lives?  I only agree telling people what to do becomes understandable when safety and harm result by neglecting the issue.  Jaywalking seems insignificant, not cutting your lawn and letting it go to a foot high, in the former there is safety for yourself, in the other, considerate thinking of others.

 


Quote:
What I would like to see is us be prudent and take whatever time is necessary to fully investigate, pinpoint, then solve if necessary.


Unless it is already too late.  Can that be in the realm of possibilities?  And just what if it is?  More convincing?  Like yet more convincing that Mattel toys are harmful?



Quote:
I know what I was talking about. Tease me about my lack of knowledge on atoms all you want. But honestly, there is a lot of arrogance out there.


I tried to explain it was no big deal, I just saw a out-of-place example and remarked.  Absolutely no arrogance intended, I simply believe one should not venture from their realm of knowledge and acquaintance, I might stick a toe over rarely but feel much better within the familiar, backing out gracefully when corrected, acceding limits being in the unfamiliar.  I made a point of understanding your attempt at what seemed to me of making a point that didn't seem true in its example.  Not an arrogant intention and I apologize it was taken that way.




Quote:
Recent history hasn't been too reassuring as it pertains to our ability to make sound and pragmatic decisions.


In some national respects no, indecision being one point and wrong decisions being another.  Perhaps on other levels, too.  But are we reassured making life harder for future generations is not to be worried about?



Quote:
I sincerely hope you are right. It would be nice for once to  not let stupid politics get in the way of problem solving.
 Guess we will just have to wait & see eh?
Cheers, Dave


Seeing beyond the present is not a caring or common habit, it takes extraordinary effort and regard.  But there is a possibility of us creating hardship for our grandchildren, and not caring right now.  

We have different thoughts but discussing is sharing each other's mind, thoughts are not invalid when you speak your mind as you believe and remain in respect for doing so.  

:)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 6th, 2007, 4:22am
Kevin;
First, it was not YOU I was accusing of being arrogant. I don't care about atoms or being corrected about how they work. Forget about where you put your toe. You did not need to go into some lengthy explanation about metaphor etiquette.  You confuse issue. I am talking about the arrogance of some scientists. It is a big reason why I and so many don't have total faith in them.

  I'm not talking about seat belts or mercury or any other thing that worked out good for us. I am talking about so many of the blunders we have caused in the recent past. Interment of US Japanese citizens, Korea, Nam, and a host of other screw ups. These are big deals and hasty ones at that.
 No matter how you word it (and you are a slickster :)), people (most everyone) do not trust the Govt. to make sound decisions....because...duh...they don't. This does not mean that this global warming thing wont be dealt with correctly. It just means that most have concerns due to lousy track record.  Giving examples of things that someone thought was hasty doesn't have a thing to do with being prudent in our problem solving. Doesn't or shouldn't affect whether it is perused... but better be careful.

  "We have become incredibly arrogant in this country. We think we know everything. We go around trying to run everyones lives when we cant even clean up the turds in our own back yard. We run & jump and do stupid things without thinking it through. We all know this, it is an undisputed fact."

 So I tell you this trying to establish the fact that we have become arrogant. You tell me about speed limits and tall grass??? Cant I have one thing Kevin? You don't have to give up your global warming thing. Fact, I just don't care who is right, that is not my issue. I only want prudent actions. Prudent being a thorough process of problem solving. Which as is painfully obviously...we haven't done very well at.  

"What I would like to see is us be prudent and take whatever time is necessary to fully investigate, pinpoint, then solve if necessary."


Unless it is already too late.  Can that be in the realm of possibilities?  And just what if it is?  More convincing?  Like yet more convincing that Mattel toys are harmful?
 

Well Kevin, if it is too late...I guess were screwed. Could it be in the realm? Well, sure...pointless question for me tho. Mattel toys? Why would I care about Mattel toys Kevin? If there is some dangerous toy on the shelf and it is prudent to get rid of it...by all means toss it out. These are all pointless questions to ask me. Since I NEVER told you it was a bad idea to study it or find some conclusion or resolution, it is not a concern for me. By all means man...study, study, study....knock yer socks off :)

You seem to be trying to give me reasons why it is prudent to pursue  global warming study. Why do you do this Kevin? I never said it wasn't.  All I ask is that it is done in a prudent manner....just that simple. No toys, no seat belts, no need to talk about tall grass or future generations. No need for that at all. Please do study it, obviously there are unanswered questions.

 Maybe I don't make my point well. Let me try:
 This is all I have asked from the start: whatever the means of study or problem solving method may be, do it in a prudent manner. Investigate ALL sides of the issue, no matter what they are. Come to a sound decision, don't be hasty.

  That is common sense and the best way to solve a problem. Much better than just dismissing the other side. Referring to them as all shills or paid for by some evil corporation. That is just not objective at all.

  For example, when you were trying to tell me about the scientists on your side. Any reasonable person would say: "Look Dave, we have 1200 scientists who all agree...they have a handful"  I'd have to say: "Well, I guess I'd be inclined to go with the 1200."
But you did not do that Kevin. You told me you have 1200 and the other guy had 2 who were paid for by someone who has some evil stake in things. There are two sides to everything. Even if that is true, it really makes you look disingenuous.  I am not saying you are, in fact as I said....I just don't care who is right.  But really, all the opposing team are liars, frauds or shills??? Couldn't they just be wrong??? I don't know, I figure if you are right then you will win the argument with no need for such tactics.

 Anyways, I'm tired and frankly am getting bored with the topic. My concerns wont amount to a hill of beans. Things will get done or not get done whether I like it or not. So, I suppose we will see what happens in the future. Either way, I've wasted my time on it since nothing I think will change the outcome.

 Sorry Kevin, but I'm bored with it.
Regards, Dave
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by stevegeebe on Sep 6th, 2007, 7:32am
Yes Donna, I watched it.

Yes Thomas, it was good/interesting.

I pride myself on researching both sides of an issue. And having read what I have of this subject, to date, leads me to the following conclusions:

Living organisms made the atmosphere. The air is simply the byproduct of the evolution of life itself. The molecules emitted from that struggle to survive and replicate provided the conditions for other, different, forms of life to thrive.

If the byproduct of an organism is poisonous the environment in which it survives will be compromised.

Steve G  


 
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:37am

on 09/05/07 at 23:03:44, assaultme wrote:
Ok Kevin. I'm happy that you have this all figured out.


A statement of no consequence to me in relating any accuracy or given notion you may have internally initiated.



on 09/05/07 at 23:05:35, assaultme wrote:
 Oh Kevin....I was being facetious. Now you funny too ;)


I guess I missed your point of being funny in speaking so off the mark and calling it facecious, but which was used to make a point.  


Quote:
Hell, scientists are so smart, they can make a Universe from two turd atoms colliding together from absolute nothingness....yup they got it all figured out.


Seems it fit in nicely for you in that "got it all figured out" point.

Which... in your first quote above was directed at me.

And which was correlated with "knowing it all"


Quote:
Keep in mind, some scientists are incredibly arrogant. Oh, they have all the answers...don't they.


I guess arrogance only applies to scientists when they "have it all figured out"?

However, this doesn't refer to scientists when applying arrogant.


Quote:
"We have become incredibly arrogant in this country. We think we know everything.


If I have this "all figured out" how is that not arrogance when you've said it applies to scientists and people who think they know everything.




Quote:
Kevin;
First, it was not YOU I was accusing of being arrogant.


I never said you did, but you felt the need to mention this.  The clarification wasn't needed if it wasn't felt.


Quote:
I am talking about the arrogance of some scientists.


Haven't you said we both "have it all figured out"  Arrogance must be only a scientific characteristic I guess, a specific application for people considered to "have it all figured out", applicable to scientists only, not meant to the otherwise referred.  No concerning issue, just making a point.



Quote:
I'm not talking about seat belts or mercury or any other thing that worked out good for us. I am talking about so many of the blunders...


Oh yes, I only mentioned where government intervention was a plus, you want to concentrate on where it has been a negative.  What would that have to do with the topic of global warming being true or not?



Quote:
Interment of US Japanese citizens, Korea, Nam, and a host of other screw ups. These are big deals and hasty ones at that.


I'm aware, now, where we are able to look back in history, there are examples of our government propagating a wrong policy or direction in step. Quite many if read more closely, i.e history of CIA, but now we get on to your point of being prudent.


Quote:
I only want prudent actions. Prudent being a thorough process of problem solving. Which as is painfully obviously...we haven't done very well at.


Define prudent.  As when the fossil fuel lobby runs out of money to refute?  I see you mention a thorough process of problem solving.  I guess you know that's not being done very well concerning efforts to determine if we are on a demisable course.  In fact, it is done very thoroughly, comprehensibly, and diligently; moreso than perhaps most any other concern, on a huge scale.  However, the opposite is painfully obvious to you. I've found much different and not argue the point.



Quote:
All I ask is that it is done in a prudent manner....


Again, prudence here, when it has been done in the most conservative and thorough manner imaginable.  I can't think of a more prudent process, which has gone on for many years.  
 As for political action, we have agreement in some form.  I simply have said it's been very slow, perhaps prudence is being used to the utmost.  Bush acknowledges the problem may exist; legislation to act seems most very prudent, not in his time.  
 

too long, con't...
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:38am
cont'd...




Quote:
This is all I have asked from the start: whatever the means of study or problem solving method may be, do it in a prudent manner. Investigate ALL sides of the issue, no matter what they are. Come to a sound decision, don't be hasty.


I've addressed this.  What if one side keep things held up due to immense financial ability to keep coming up with something that doesn't make it 100% sure, only 98%.  Things have not proceeded hastily due to financial opposition, though the scientific investigations are top notch.  Money can talk louder than whatever science can decipher.  When will that deep financial well stop trying to be otherly convincing, providing perhaps undo delay referred to as prudence.



Quote:
You told me you have 1200 and the other guy had 2 who were paid for by someone who has some evil stake in things. There are two sides to everything. Even if that is true, it really makes you look disingenuous.


Yes, those perhaps two have a financial backing that gives them voice equal to the 1200, right or wrong as they may be.  I'm not going with the majority here, any criticism is fine, but arguments supported and pressed by fossil fuel future profit concerns and possible legislation to their business, that backing is keeping any change from happening, yes, things are proceeding quite prudently, and will continue to be.  



Quote:
Anyways, I'm tired and frankly am getting bored with the topic.
...I've wasted my time on it since nothing I think will change the outcome.


It's not a topic I'm obsessed with either.  Usually works out predictably divisional in nature.  Not a tangent that is this board's purpose.

Thanks for the relating.  Hope this controversial topic has reflected respect to your viable thoughts, despite my less than polite coming across, but however, there is a verbiage inherent to be addressed, as opposed to arrogantly choosing to be disregarding.  

And appologize for any insinuation of 35 years of logical reasoning, including sets, subsets, inclusive or noninclusive in dealing with arrogance.


sincerely,  and welcome.  :)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Paul98 on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:51am

on 09/06/07 at 00:28:32, assaultme wrote:
But I am concerned Kevin. Again & again we have been fed junk and only later to find out we spent money on junk.


Exactly!  Remember the urgent need to oxygenate gas?  Oooooh we gotta do something…The sky is falling!  Well, your dumbass congress passed a law requiring MBTE in the gas.  (they probably had stock in the company that made it) rammed the requirement down the publics throat.  This set off the first round of very high fuel prices because of the need to retool the refineries and re route the distribution of the custom blends.  Well, low and behold.  Some years later we now have massive groundwater contamination because MBTE migrates in the soil and doesn’t degrade.  

Your congress just does one knee jerk reaction after another without ANY thought beyond tomorrows’ election.  Look at ethanol in gas….another knee jerk reaction.  The 10% saving in pollution requires you to pay 30-40 % more for a gallon of gas AND you use 15-20% MORE gas to get to where you have to go.  

Congress could not give a flippingfuck about anything other than themselves.  They got on board the frantic “do something” bandwagon for two reasons.  To get re-elected and they see it as a way to play off the hysteria of the moment in order to justify raising your taxes.

Rant off.

-P.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:59am

on 09/06/07 at 08:51:26, Paul98 wrote:
Congress could not give a flippingfuck about anything other than themselves.  They got on board the frantic “do something” bandwagon for two reasons.  To get re-elected and they see it as a way to play off the hysteria of the moment in order to justify raising your taxes.


Yes, discerning human effect and political motivation and action are different.  
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by LeLimey on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:47am

on 09/06/07 at 08:59:36, Kevin_M wrote:
Yes, discerning human effect and political motivation and action are different.  


Kevin have you been at Dape's little blue pills my little thesaurus?  ;;D
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by 1stdonna on Sep 6th, 2007, 12:26pm
Good Lord!  What a difference a day makes!  Who kidnapped my thread, here?

Kevin:  Thank you for fighting the good fight. Arrogant people like you are our only hope.  

The word "prudent" has been used inappropriatly in this thread, so I will pose a few questions after these indisputable facts.....

 1.  Human beings, one way or another, have added roughly 315 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere.  http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/co2.htm.  http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

 2. In the last century the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 25%. We are noticibly changing our atmosphere !

 3. Human beings, between 2003 and 2004 increased their rate of CO2 emission by an estimated  5.4%.

 4.  All scientists agree that  increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat the atmosphere traps.  The disagreement has always been "by how much?" .  The "how much" has ranged from unnoticable to catostrophic.

We are changing our planets' atmosphere in a way that will be very difficult to undo, so, my question.....woudn't it be prudent to limit as much as possible, even with resulting economic pain, our CO2 emissions until we have proven that our activities are not going to cause catostrophic environmental damage?

Why do the arrogant scientists have to prove global warming?  Shouldn't the ever so meek carbon producers have to prove they are not killing our world?

My good, Jimmers?

See you all in 2 hours.....having my blood pressure checked.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 6th, 2007, 5:50pm
Kevin, you silver tongue devil you. You are quite the little word-weaver.
 
 My entire point is that it is reasonable for me and many others to be leary of what we hear. We have been fed junk and believed it for so long, it is no surprise. Remember, that is leary of both sides.

 I don't think it is crazy to have a wait & see attitude. It's not unusual for anyone to think it's gonna end up getting screwed up just like so many things before. You wont even give me that?

 You are front'n Kevin. I mean, you are not being real.
When I tell you that I think things will get screwed up, what do I get?
 I don't get: "Well Dave, thats just how it goes...you take your chances and hope people do their job properly and everything works correctly."
Nope, I get some very clever convoluted comparisons of apple fritters and buggy wheels.

  You don't have to think it somehow it damages your argument just cause you admit we have been told junk before and believed it. Maybe thats just tough crap for us. Point is, it is a valid concern. Thats all I wanted to hear. Now, I guess if you don't think I have a thing to be concerned with...I'll just have to be concerned without sanction. I can live with that I guess. Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. People in charge will do as they please no matter what my concerns. If minimizing my concerns helps you beat you opponent somehow, thats ok. I just don't think that is keeping it real.

 I personally think you are not being objective as it relates to your opponents arguments. A half a dozen guys get on TV and refute your camp. Instead of just being real and saying nothing more than : "We have the majority of scientists, they are in a small minority....who ya gonna believe?"
  You accuse them of being some conspiracy or paid off saboteurs. That just doesn't sound objective to anyone. Are there people out there trying to derail other peoples efforts? Well, I'd bet there are. But to just dismiss all of them as paid saboteurs just doesn't seem very real to anyone. I mean, you told me that there are only one or two who think that way. That is not true, you deceive me.
I don't want to be told things that are not true. I would not lie to you or deceive you. See why I am leary of what I am told? It makes it look like you are tweeking  things in your favour. Anyone who is right doesn't need to do that. Thing is, I don't think you need to do that either. I think you have a good argument for your opponent as far as I can tell.

Heck, you even try to discredit my concerns because it somehow doesn't fit in with your arguments. Why would it HAVE to? I'm not even a threat to your arguments. Thing is, I don't doubt your arguments. Like I said, I don't know who is right. Don't really care, only that we end up with correct decisions.

If I cant get a ya from you on that, then I am even more confused and distrustful than I was before.
Cheers, Dave
 
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:52pm

on 09/06/07 at 17:50:19, assaultme wrote:
You are quite the little word-weaver.


You show a surprisingly excessive skill at similar, only I wouldn't call it word-weaving, moreless searching for an argument or even a point.  Let's take a look.

Here's one point made:


Quote:
We have become incredibly arrogant in this country.


Another:


Quote:
My entire point is that it is reasonable for me and many others to be leary of what we hear.


and Another again repeated:


Quote:
But I do see people coming to conclusions really quickly when there are still conflicting opinions.
 

Another new "entire point"


Quote:
Point is, it is a valid concern. Thats all I wanted to hear.


said quite often before.


Quote:
I am trying to say that I think we are not being prudent enough.


Yet another


Quote:
So, it's great if people want to spend time to research this subject, but I don't think it will change the root problem I have just outlined.


Another, I've addressed.


Quote:
This is all I have asked from the start: whatever the means of study or problem solving method may be, do it in a prudent manner. Investigate ALL sides of the issue, no matter what they are. Come to a sound decision, don't be hasty.
 

Another


Quote:
people (most everyone) do not trust the Govt. to make sound decisions....because...duh...they don't


Another


Quote:
It is not enough for me to believe in some majority rules,


Another opinionated point


Quote:
Is it not logical to spend a little more time understanding something  before we (the Govt.) start fixing it?


Another, simply said in a different way, but said in a different way, as if I didn't understand the first time, but adding it is an "undisputed truth"


Quote:
We run & jump and do stupid things without thinking it through. We all know this, it is an undisputed fact.[quote]

Another

[quote]My concerns wont amount to a hill of beans. Things will get done or not get done whether I like it or not. So, I suppose we will see what happens in the future. Either way, I've wasted my time on it since nothing I think will change the outcome.

redundantly another

[quote]I don't think it is crazy to have a wait & see attitude.


How long do we wait for 100% surety before acting?

 

I believe this has been addressed:


Quote:
Hope this controversial topic has reflected respect to your viable thoughts...


But I see you want to change that at will to mean "invalid thoughts"  And other "all I wanted to hear, point."



Quote:
I don't think it is crazy to have a wait & see attitude. It's not unusual for anyone to think it's gonna end up getting screwed up just like so many things before. You wont even give me that?


Previously addressed also.  Is this your whole case?  Are you so sure it will be handled wrong and we will be screwed, or will neglecting the issue entirely screw us more in the long run?  I've acknowledged good and bad government intervention; you seem to consider that legislation concerning this will be bad, stating that as your case believed above.  I guess an alternative is letting the fossil fuel industry handle it is considered "prudent" because it seems to you otherwise misleading info anyway.  Yet you say you are not entirely informed about it and it bores you.

Here we have reason for that statement, overly repeated, perhaps thinking I didn't understand the first time:


Quote:
We have been fed junk and believed it for so long, it is no surprise. Remember, that is leary of both sides.


Yet you say you're not entirely well informed, just believe it is "fed junk".   How would you know?

 

Quote:
You are front'n Kevin. I mean, you are not being real. [b]
When I tell you that [b]I think things will get screwed up, what do I get?
 I don't get: "Well Dave, thats just how it goes...you take your chances and hope people do their job properly and everything works correctly."
Nope, I get some very clever convoluted comparisons of apple fritters and buggy wheels.


You'll have to quote me on all this.  As to "not being real," why would I consider this all not real and continue on with this "other side" you have been proposing, refering to "opponent" and find the issue you find imprudent to address?  Because I just like to be right and argue?  I think you may find different hanging around.



Quote:
You don't have to think it somehow it damages your argument just cause you admit we have been told junk before and believed it.


How does that create a flawed discussion when I've admitted junk being tossed, but in a different scenario, and what makes you so sure I've believed it?

long, con't...

 
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:54pm
cont'd...

quote author=assaultme link=board=general;num=1189016685;start=25#37 date=09/06/07 at 17:50:19]You are quite the little word-weaver.[/quote]

You show a surprisingly excessive skill at similar, only I wouldn't call it word-weaving, moreless searching for an argument or even a point.  Let's take a look.

Here's one point made:


Quote:
We have become incredibly arrogant in this country.


Another:


Quote:
My entire point is that it is reasonable for me and many others to be leary of what we hear.


and Another again repeated:


Quote:
But I do see people coming to conclusions really quickly when there are still conflicting opinions.
 

Another new "entire point"


Quote:
Point is, it is a valid concern. Thats all I wanted to hear.


said quite often before.


Quote:
I am trying to say that I think we are not being prudent enough.


Yet another


Quote:
So, it's great if people want to spend time to research this subject, but I don't think it will change the root problem I have just outlined.


Another, I've addressed.


Quote:
This is all I have asked from the start: whatever the means of study or problem solving method may be, do it in a prudent manner. Investigate ALL sides of the issue, no matter what they are. Come to a sound decision, don't be hasty.
 

Another


Quote:
people (most everyone) do not trust the Govt. to make sound decisions....because...duh...they don't


Another


Quote:
It is not enough for me to believe in some majority rules,


Another opinionated point


Quote:
Is it not logical to spend a little more time understanding something  before we (the Govt.) start fixing it?


Another, simply said in a different way, but said in a different way, as if I didn't understand the first time, but adding it is an "undisputed truth"


Quote:
We run & jump and do stupid things without thinking it through. We all know this, it is an undisputed fact.[quote]

Another

[quote]My concerns wont amount to a hill of beans. Things will get done or not get done whether I like it or not. So, I suppose we will see what happens in the future. Either way, I've wasted my time on it since nothing I think will change the outcome.

redundantly another

[quote]I don't think it is crazy to have a wait & see attitude.


How long do we wait for 100% surety before acting?

 

I believe this has been addressed:


Quote:
Hope this controversial topic has reflected respect to [quote]your viable thoughts...


But I see you want to change that at will to mean "invalid thoughts"  And other "all I wanted to hear, point."



Quote:
I don't think it is crazy to have a wait & see attitude. [b]It's not unusual for anyone to think it's gonna end up getting screwed up just like so many things before. You wont even give me that?


Previously addressed also.  Is this your whole case?  Are you so sure it will be handled wrong and we will be screwed, or will neglecting the issue entirely screw us more in the long run?  I've acknowledged good and bad government intervention; you seem to consider that legislation concerning this will be bad, stating that as your case believed above.  I guess an alternative is letting the fossil fuel industry handle it because it seems to you misleading info anyway.  Yet you say you are not entirely informed about it and it bores you.

Here we have reason for that statement, overly repeated, perhaps thinking I didn't understand the first time:


Quote:
We have been fed junk and believed it for so long, it is no surprise. Remember, that is leary of both sides.


Yet you say you're not entirely well informed, just believe it is "fed junk".   How would you know?

 

Quote:
You are front'n Kevin. I mean, [quote]you are not being real.

When I tell you that
Quote:
I think things will get screwed up,
what do I get?
 I don't get:
Quote:
"Well Dave, thats just how it goes...you take your chances and hope people do their job properly and everything works correctly."

Nope, I get some very clever convoluted comparisons of apple fritters and buggy wheels.[/quote]

You'll have to quote me on all this.  As to "not being real," why would I consider this all not real and continue on with this "other side" you have been proposing, refering to "opponent" and find the issue you find imprudent to address?  Because I just like to be right and argue?  I think you may find different hanging around.



Quote:
You don't have to think it somehow it damages your argument just cause you admit we have been told junk before and believed it.


How does that create a flawed discussion when I've admitted junk being tossed, but in a different scenario, and what makes you so sure I've believed it?

long, con't...
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by LeLimey on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:03pm
And this is why we'll never have a solution  ::)

maybe if people stopped nit-picking each other's posts and actually worked TOGETHER we could come up with something that might just work?

WTF do I know huh?!  :P
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by assaultme on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:24pm
Look Kevin:

 I don't trust the Gooberment. The last honest Pres. I lived under was JFK. Like him or not, he was a straight up guy.
During all those years I have lived through plenty of scares. I'm still standin' Doesn't mean this one isn't valid. It just means my wait & see attitude is valid.

Stop trying to recruit me. It may come as a shock to you with your 35 years of critical thinking, but other people see the world through other eyes. Just because they don't jump on your bandwagon, doesn't mean you need to tirelessly recruit them or endlessly quote & reply for the insincere purpose of waxing philosophic.  

 I know you know what is best for me, your every post proves that. But sorry pal, I gotta be me no matter how much enlightenment you have to bestow on others.

   And, stop crying about the arrogant word. I did not call you that or infer to it. I'll tell you what !!! If I got something to say....I'll say it to your face like a man. Not sitting behind my keyboard popping out pithy little phrases, waxing the carrot and replying to quotes just to ingratiate myself. Thats where I'm at Kevin. Can you dig that?

I'm done sitting here listening to you treat people smugly. I think you have been insincere and deceptive in the way you have acted.

 I wont bother you anymore. Your welcome to the last word. So, jump on up stumpy and rub one out.
Good day Sir.
Dave
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:26pm
Christ, I lost another additional conversation.


Consively, read Stevegebee's post from someone who actually saw it and related an opinion.


Sorry about the lost continuation.  It involved rowing as the VERY concering ing reason for this site.  Let's rather do that together.

So much more said but mistakes are constantly self-edited, unless there is nothing to edit.  

If you wish to continue, I've capable recall, tediously, of much more.
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:49pm

on 09/06/07 at 21:24:08, assaultme wrote:
Stop trying to recruit me.

Just because they don't jump on your bandwagon, doesn't mean you need to tirelessly recruit them


Recruit?  Just see another side.  Nice insinuation though.



Quote:
I know you know what is best for me, your every post proves that. But sorry pal, I gotta be me no matter how much enlightenment you have to bestow on others.


Stick around for a perhaps less impulsive opinion.

   

Quote:
And, stop crying about the arrogant word. I did not call you that or infer to it.


Ok, I'll accept that if you are sincere.




Quote:
I'll tell you what !!! If I got something to say....I'll say it to your face like a man. Not sitting behind my keyboard popping out pithy little phrases, waxing the carrot and replying to quotes just to ingratiate myself. Thats where I'm at Kevin. Can you dig that?


Why would you think I would think otherwise.  Quite used to that and doesn't need to be said.


Quote:
I'm done sitting here listening to you treat people smugly. I think you have been insincere and deceptive in the way you have acted.


Sorry to seem disagreeable.  Insincere and smug are again quite an opinion that may be assessed by the subject perhaps.  



Quote:
I wont bother you anymore. Your welcome to the last word. So, jump on up stumpy and rub one out.
Good day Sir.


No bother, but just trying to say stick around and maybe we can row together to a more agreeable cause.

 :)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Kevin_M on Sep 6th, 2007, 9:58pm

on 09/06/07 at 21:03:53, LeLimey wrote:
and actually worked TOGETHER we could come up with something that might just work?

WTF do I know huh?!  :P


a bit.  a lot.   But it has no bearing on being a likeable snot.

  ;)
Title: Re: Anyone see the NOVA special last night
Post by Charlie on Sep 6th, 2007, 10:46pm
When I was a little boy, we had Einstein....yes, I am that old. We now have Steven Hawking. I'm with Steve. He's good enough for me.


Quote:
I don't trust the Gooberment. The last honest Pres. I lived under was JFK. Like him or not, he was a straight up guy.  


One thing I do know is that JFK listened to scientists and not just the ones hired by oil companies.....one thing he has been given credit for is the 1960s surge in all things scientific in reaction to the space race. Things like bickering over stem cell research, creationists, and the inane comments that the jury is still out on Darwin,  probably wouldn't make even local news. He had his eye on serious stuff. He was fun too. You had to be there.....

It's like Evolution, Kevin. Where is Spencer Tracey when we need him? http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/sissy fight.gif

Charlie  


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.