 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 4 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| richp... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 7:20 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
[quote]k00k-a-d00dle-d000!
richp wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
k00k-a-d00dle-d000! to you asshole |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ouroboros Rex... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Claudius Denk wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 3:41 pm, "John M." <jmorgan1234... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:
snip
Answer my question you evasive jackass: Isn't it true
that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically valid equation
of greenhouse properties?
I am also unaware of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Aha! So you do not deny that you are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties then you have no objective
criteria for designating any gas a greenhouse gas or not a greenhouse
gas.
[/quote]
translation: quaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaackwackwackwackwack |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 11:20 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 12:44 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:21 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp..googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
This is a perfect example of the amorphous nonsense that AGW
propagandist employ to divert attention. For example, There is
nothing on here that allows us to quantify how much of a greenhouse
gas nitrogen is. As you demonstrate, you about have to be retarded to
mistake this propaganda for valid science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey fuckbrains nitrogen doesn't absorb much infrared you jackass
Relevance?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
CO2 does
[/quote]
Only whackos believe it matters. (BTW, Nitrogen does also--look it
up)
- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:54 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses"
The term "green house gasses" is an amorphous term. It has no
scientifically valid definition.
or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that
includes and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat
capacities etc...), no excuses show the information you evasie twit.
It's your delusion.
laughing, dont blame others because you are too lazy, now quit
squirming, or admit you have no place to call anybody a liar. Next
quit pretending like you have made any point other than to show how
stupid/lazyyou really are. So once again show the known properties of
"green house gasses" or gases that transmit visible light, but absorb
and reemit infrared energy (that includes and is not limited to their
quantum properties, molar heat capacities etc...), no excuses show
the information you evasie twit.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
So once again show the known properties of "green house gasses" or
gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...), no excuses, just show the information. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 12:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses"
The term "green house gasses" is an amorphous term. It has no
scientifically valid definition.
or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that
includes and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat
capacities etc...), no excuses show the information you evasie twit.
It's your delusion.
[/quote]
So once again show the known properties of "green house gasses" or
gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...), no excuses show the information.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:02 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 5:40 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:24 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:41 pm, "John M." <jmorgan1234... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Answer my question you evasive jackass: Isn't it true
that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically valid equation of
greenhouse properties?
I am also unaware of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Aha! So you do not deny that you are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties
Err ...no. What I have just "admitted" is that when an expression
contains a contradiction in terms, it is impossible to derive meaning
from it. I cannot, and very likely may never, be aware of "a
thermodynamically valid equation of greenhouse properties" because it
is a statement that has, as yet, no meaning in real science.
You should publish your research to thereby inform scientists that
thermodynamics has no efficacy/meaning. This is big news.
[/quote]
Nope. The fact that calculating from first principles to obtain
thermodynamic information is well-known in scientific circles
[quote] Don't hide
your research from us.
[/quote]
Just Google my name, and you'll find enough of my research to start
you off.
[quote]The GHGs derive their heat-flow-slowing property from individual
quantum processes. Thermodynamics describes quasi-steady states from
quantum interactions too numerous to detail individually.
Thermodynamics encompasses quantum interaction you fucking retard.
[/quote]
What nonsense. TD derives from statistical and quantum principles in
the universe I inhabit.
[quote]With the
current fashion for computing bulk properties directly from quantum
states, there is unlikely to ever be a thermodynamic equation of the
type you want - unless you set to work and grind it out for yourself.
It's your delusion. Why don't you explain it to us in terms of quantum
mechanics. If nothing else your explanation should be good for a few
laughs.
[/quote]
You want an equation you get your own. I see no need for any such
thing, so I won't be breaking my head over trying to derive one -
ever.
[quote]
then you have no objective
criteria for designating any gas a greenhouse gas or not a greenhouse
gas. So you have just admitted that you have no objective (or
quantitative) criteria for designating Nitrogen to not be a greenhouse
gas.
What ! N2 has no energy level gaps even close to the wavelengths
involved in 300 K grey body radiation.
Relevance?
[/quote]
Yes, lots of relevance.
[quote]You don't seem to know even
basic stuff, so why don't you do what I suggested and read up a bit.
References? And, keep in mind, the rest of us don't have access to
your imagination.
[/quote]
Start with Wikipedia. The articles there are always replete with
references.
[quote] And you also just admitted you have no objective (or
quantitative) criteria for designating CO2 to not be a greenhouse gas..
Thank you for helping me make my point that the AGW premise is
amorphous, non-testable, non-scientific nonsense.
It's being tested as I write this.
Really? Where? Do you have a secret laboratory. Please tell me. I
won't tell anybody else. I promise.
[/quote]
If you had bothered to continue reading at this point, you would have
noticed that I did tell you where and when - quite precisely in fact,
but let me spell it out. Where is here on planet Earth and now is 2009
and onwards.
[quote]The AGW experiment should result in
gross climate change and the full results will be in about 100 years
from now - if it doesn't get its funding cut.
In the meantime, don't you think you AGW whackos should call off the
emergency--you know, at least until the experiment produces results.
[/quote]
Unfortunately a very large body of evidence shows that the experiment
is dangerous for the experimenters. Perhaps you're too young to
remember what experimentation did at Chernobyl. 50,000 premature
deaths in Europe and still counting.
[quote]but that doesn't mean his noodliness doesn't exist.
It must be frustrating for you that your imagination isn't considered
scientific evidence.
Answer the question you evasive twit. And keep in mind that the rest
of us don't have access to your imagination.
Perhaps you should read up a bit -
References?
At what level would you like to start?
It's your delusion.
Aha! Willfull ignorance rules. I thought as much, but I gave you the
benefit of the doubt till this point.
It's regrettable you AGW whackos are so secretive.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 2:27 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
[quote]columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:" I
wish the one line nutcases would stop causing me to delete every
one line lunacy they post"
So, if one liners cause you to have a pavlovian response, and then
on top of that you find a need to blame others for your lack of
self control, i would say one line posts are the least of your
problems. Now to see how you respond to a two line post, i would
also ask you to stop calling yourself a nutcase...
Your logic shows you to be an idiot. Why is that?
really, maybe you need to make a statement like that to help him out,
as i used his own words against him, laughing.....
You used his words to make an ass of yourself as you always do. Tsk- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
but your opinion is not relevant, good luck convincing yourself
otherwise... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 1:56 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:02 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:40 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:24 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:41 pm, "John M." <jmorgan1234... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
Answer my question you evasive jackass: Isn't it true
that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically valid equation of
greenhouse properties?
I am also unaware of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Aha! So you do not deny that you are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties
Err ...no. What I have just "admitted" is that when an expression
contains a contradiction in terms, it is impossible to derive meaning
from it. I cannot, and very likely may never, be aware of "a
thermodynamically valid equation of greenhouse properties" because it
is a statement that has, as yet, no meaning in real science.
You should publish your research to thereby inform scientists that
thermodynamics has no efficacy/meaning. This is big news.
Nope. The fact that calculating from first principles to obtain
thermodynamic information is well-known in scientific circles
[/quote]
You loons talk in circles. Show us. Don't tell us. You are the
retard that brought quantum mechanics into the discussion. Put up or
shut up.
[quote]
Don't hide
your research from us.
Just Google my name, and you'll find enough of my research to start
you off.
[/quote]
You are a phoney.
[quote]
The GHGs derive their heat-flow-slowing property from individual
quantum processes. Thermodynamics describes quasi-steady states from
quantum interactions too numerous to detail individually.
Thermodynamics encompasses quantum interaction you fucking retard.
What nonsense. TD derives from statistical and quantum principles in
the universe I inhabit.
With the
current fashion for computing bulk properties directly from quantum
states, there is unlikely to ever be a thermodynamic equation of the
type you want - unless you set to work and grind it out for yourself.
It's your delusion. Why don't you explain it to us in terms of quantum
mechanics. If nothing else your explanation should be good for a few
laughs.
You want an equation you get your own. I see no need for any such
thing, so I won't be breaking my head over trying to derive one -
ever.
[/quote]
It's too bad you can't just provide us a link to your imagination.
[quote]
then you have no objective
criteria for designating any gas a greenhouse gas or not a greenhouse
gas. So you have just admitted that you have no objective (or
quantitative) criteria for designating Nitrogen to not be a greenhouse
gas.
What ! N2 has no energy level gaps even close to the wavelengths
involved in 300 K grey body radiation.
Relevance?
Yes, lots of relevance.
[/quote]
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
right and so completely unable to say how or why.
[quote]
You don't seem to know even
basic stuff, so why don't you do what I suggested and read up a bit.
References? And, keep in mind, the rest of us don't have access to
your imagination.
Start with Wikipedia. The articles there are always replete with
references.
[/quote]
Wikipedia is your source? That explains a lot.
[quote]
And you also just admitted you have no objective (or
quantitative) criteria for designating CO2 to not be a greenhouse gas.
Thank you for helping me make my point that the AGW premise is
amorphous, non-testable, non-scientific nonsense.
It's being tested as I write this.
Really? Where? Do you have a secret laboratory. Please tell me.. I
won't tell anybody else. I promise.
If you had bothered to continue reading at this point, you would have
noticed that I did tell you where and when - quite precisely in fact,
but let me spell it out. Where is here on planet Earth and now is 2009
and onwards.
[/quote]
Are you from another planet?
[quote]
The AGW experiment should result in
gross climate change and the full results will be in about 100 years
from now - if it doesn't get its funding cut.
In the meantime, don't you think you AGW whackos should call off the
emergency--you know, at least until the experiment produces results.
Unfortunately a very large body of evidence shows that the experiment
is dangerous for the experimenters. Perhaps you're too young to
remember what experimentation did at Chernobyl. 50,000 premature
deaths in Europe and still counting.
[/quote]
This whacko is going off the deep end.
[quote]
but that doesn't mean his noodliness doesn't exist.
It must be frustrating for you that your imagination isn't considered
scientific evidence.
Answer the question you evasive twit. And keep in mind that the rest
of us don't have access to your imagination.
Perhaps you should read up a bit -
References?
At what level would you like to start?
It's your delusion.
Aha! Willfull ignorance rules. I thought as much, but I gave you the
benefit of the doubt till this point.
It's regrettable you AGW whackos are so secretive.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 12:29 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses"
The term "green house gasses" is an amorphous term. It has no
scientifically valid definition.
or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that
includes and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat
capacities etc...), no excuses show the information you evasie twit.
It's your delusion.
So once again show the known properties of "green house gasses" or
gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...), no excuses show the information.
[/quote]
It's not my reponsibility to explain your delusions.
..- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 2:53 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
It's not my reponsibility to explain your delusions."
its your responsibility to act in a civil manner, you cut and snipped
this thread from another taking my words out of context, then made
some lame accusations, now you back out with a chicken manure reply,
you are joke. Maybe it is your responsiblity to shut up if your cant
put up, dont demand answers if you cant provide them yourself, and you
certainly dont have a place to call me delusional if you cant do a
little work. So get of your lazy *&% next time and do a little work
before you start making an idiot out of yourself.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
richp wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 7:20 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
k00k-a-d00dle-d000!
richp wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups..com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).- Hide quoted
text -
- Show quoted text -
k00k-a-d00dle-d000! to you asshole
[/quote]
Well, I dunno. He seems reasonably intelligent but there is
something ....... I've got it!. He's full of shit. - George Carlin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:" I
wish the one line nutcases would stop causing me to delete every
one line lunacy they post"
So, if one liners cause you to have a pavlovian response, and then
on top of that you find a need to blame others for your lack of
self control, i would say one line posts are the least of your
problems. Now to see how you respond to a two line post, i would
also ask you to stop calling yourself a nutcase...
Your logic shows you to be an idiot. Why is that?
really, maybe you need to make a statement like that to help him out,
as i used his own words against him, laughing.....
[/quote]
You used his words to make an ass of yourself as you always do. Tsk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 2:53 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
It's not my reponsibility to explain your delusions."
its your responsibility to act in a civil manner, you cut and snipped
this thread from another taking my words out of context, then made
some lame accusations, now you back out with a chicken manure reply,
you are joke. Maybe it is your responsiblity to shut up if your cant
put up, dont demand answers if you cant provide them yourself, and you
certainly dont have a place to call me delusional if you cant do a
little work. So get of your lazy *&% next time and do a little work
before you start making an idiot out of yourself....
[/quote]
I put Claudius Denk in my killfile on my old computer, I see that he
is still wasting everybody's time here on the NG.
Claudius Denk is a troll. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:05 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
[quote]columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:53 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
It's not my reponsibility to explain your delusions."
its your responsibility to act in a civil manner, you cut and snipped
this thread from another taking my words out of context, then made
some lame accusations, now you back out with a chicken manure reply,
you are joke. Maybe it is your responsiblity to shut up if your cant
put up, dont demand answers if you cant provide them yourself, and you
certainly dont have a place to call me delusional if you cant do a
little work. So get of your lazy *&% next time and do a little work
before you start making an idiot out of yourself....
What hypocracy. And you have yet to answer any questions. Pathetic.
[/quote]
if you want to answer for him than do it, he is too lazy, and im sure
you are as well, but step on up if you want... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:06 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
[quote]columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:27 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:" I
wish the one line nutcases would stop causing me to delete every
one line lunacy they post"
So, if one liners cause you to have a pavlovian response, and
then on top of that you find a need to blame others for your
lack of self control, i would say one line posts are the least
of your problems. Now to see how you respond to a two line
post, i would also ask you to stop calling yourself a nutcase...
Your logic shows you to be an idiot. Why is that?
really, maybe you need to make a statement like that to help him
out, as i used his own words against him, laughing.....
You used his words to make an ass of yourself as you always do. Tsk-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
but your opinion is not relevant, good luck convincing yourself
otherwise...
That was not an opinion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
your right, your views are much less... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:34 am
|
|