America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 4 years ago by ZRX1200. 202 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
PROOF ! Global Warming is a Hoax
tailgater Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:

.....
I've said here for years that I am barely smart enough to realize I'm stupid. That is to say that I realize I don't know sh*t, but I know enough to know that there is WAY too much I don't know. On global warming, I'm going to side with the scientists who do this everyday, all day, for their entire life and who also have the leftist political leanings that I happen to embrace. All day. My entire life.. That seems more reasonable to me than to listen to conservative senators or media personalities, but that's just me. ....




Fuzz,
Looks like you omitted an important part of your post.
I took the liberty to highlight the obvious oversight on your part.

you're welcome.
Gater
FuzzNJ Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Thanks.

Now I know calculating and studying are 'leftist' things.

You go with your gut and what feels right to you.

Knock yourself out.
teedubbya Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
if all the armys of the world lauched al their nukes at the same time could they change the climate?


I think man is changing the climate in AZ.

Is smog a natural occurance?

Is your O face as funny as mine?

Acid rain is normal.

What caused the dust bowl?
DrafterX Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Think
how is global warming a partisan thing anyway..?? all democrats believe in globl warming..?? Huh
DrafterX Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
teedubbya wrote:

What caused the dust bowl?



too much dust..?? Huh
teedubbya Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DrafterX wrote:
too much dust..?? Huh


severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion. Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural deep-rooted grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds.

DrafterX Offline
#107 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
we didn't know much about irrigation at that time either... good thing we had the indians around to teach us... Mellow
FuzzNJ Offline
#108 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
teedubbya wrote:
severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion. Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural deep-rooted grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds.



So your saying an act of god then? Natural earth cycle and stuff?
DrafterX Offline
#109 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
FuzzNJ wrote:
So your saying an act of god then? Natural earth cycle and stuff?


I don't think that's what he said... I'll let him clear that up for you tho... Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#110 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
looking around tell me this is unbiased language from history.com wow....

its mostly fact but they did throw some opinionated crap in as well

Ranchers and farmers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, driven by the American agricultural ethos of expansion and a sense of autonomy from nature, aggressively exploited the land and set up the region for ecological disaster. Most early settlers used the land for livestock grazing until agricultural mechanization combined with high grain prices during World War I enticed farmers to plow up millions of acres of natural grass cover to plant wheat.

teedubbya Offline
#111 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
FuzzNJ wrote:
So your saying an act of god then? Natural earth cycle and stuff?



yes that is exactly what I was saying
Buckwheat Offline
#112 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Sometimes lies are what it takes to get people to pay attention. Just look at the "facts" around the WMD's and the justification for the war(s) in the Middle East and the birther's "facts".
DrafterX Offline
#113 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#114 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
someone blew up the birthers?
FuzzNJ Offline
#115 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
teedubbya wrote:
yes that is exactly what I was saying


Damn. Tailgater was right then.

Hey, did you know that at one time Pennsylvania was like a jungle and that means humans can't effect the climate?
teedubbya Offline
#116 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
FuzzNJ wrote:
Damn. Tailgater was right then.

Hey, did you know that at one time Pennsylvania was like a jungle and that means humans can't effect the climate?


yess I heard that in a jethro tull song. right before the ghey flute stuff.
FuzzNJ Offline
#117 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
teedubbya wrote:
yess I heard that in a jethro tull song. right before the ghey flute stuff.


band camp?
teedubbya Offline
#118 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
never went to one. I hear they are fun though. heard you went to the Penn State Camp (after the whole jungle thing subsided)
FuzzNJ Offline
#119 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
teedubbya wrote:
never went to one. I hear they are fun though. heard you went to the Penn State Camp (after the whole jungle thing subsided)


Just after. I'm really old. I try not to think about it though. Bad memories.
teedubbya Offline
#120 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
FuzzNJ wrote:
Just after. I'm really old. I try not to think about it though. Bad memories.


is that before or after the preist pounded god out of your life?
FuzzNJ Offline
#121 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
teedubbya wrote:
is that before or after the preist pounded god out of your life?


I'm not Catholic.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#122 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,431
FuzzNJ wrote:
I'm not Catholic.



Damn that parrish did a train!
teedubbya Offline
#123 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
FuzzNJ wrote:
I'm not Catholic.


I don't blame you after all that.
DadZilla3 Offline
#124 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
FuzzNJ wrote:
Damn. Tailgater was right then.

Hey, did you know that at one time Pennsylvania was like a jungle and that means humans can't effect the climate?

Right you are, Professor Corey.

Reductio ad absurdum
re·duc·ti·o ad ab·sur·dum
[ri-duhk-tee-oh ad ab-sur-duhm, -zur-, -shee-oh]

noun

a reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating the inevitably absurd conclusion to which it would logically lead.
Buckwheat Offline
#125 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
teedubbya wrote:
someone blew up the birthers?


Why bother? They will implode when Obama gets reelected. Frying pan
teedubbya Offline
#126 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
DadZilla3 wrote:
Right you are, Professor Corey.

Reductio ad absurdum
re·duc·ti·o ad ab·sur·dum
[ri-duhk-tee-oh ad ab-sur-duhm, -zur-, -shee-oh]

noun

a reduction to an absurdity; the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating the inevitably absurd conclusion to which it would logically lead.



easy for you to say

I think we should all start acting like adults don't you agree Mr. Poopypants?
teedubbya Offline
#127 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Buckwheat wrote:
Why bother? They will implode when Obama gets reelected. Frying pan


I don't think he will. Then again I didn't think Bush would either after the hot mess he created.... so wtf do I know?
tailgater Offline
#128 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
Thanks.

Now I know calculating and studying are 'leftist' things.

You go with your gut and what feels right to you.

Knock yourself out.


So there are no scientist who oppose the man-made climate change theory?

More to the point, if you believe in scientific discovery, you'd recognize that any study with such an insignificant pool of data can not possibly be expected to yield firm conclusions.
Yet, I see folks cite "proof" all the time.

No scientist worth his salt would state that since the climate is changing and man is burning fossil fuels, that the two are necessarily related. (of course, it doesn't mean their not, but you don't have the clarity to be so unbiased).

You want to twist facts to make a point?
I could tell you that the burning of fossil fuels actually COOLS the earth because they form a filter for the suns rays. You want proof? There is evidence to suggest that the days following 9/11 that the average temperature in North America actually increased, and some serious consideration was given to the fact that all aircraft were grounded. No fuel being burned. No jet trails and vapor fumes to block those nasty UVA and UVB.

Now, I'm not saying this is true. But you can see where insufficient data is dangerous.
And this is especially true when there is a preconceived theory. Born from politics and money.

And don't be so naive as to suggest that the scientific community couldn't be swayed by money and politics.

You see a scientist paid by a private corporation as being biased.
But you ignore the fact that so many others are funded by grants provided by the federal government either directly or indirectly.

You're funny when you think you know things.


FuzzNJ Offline
#129 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Wow. The ignorance in that last post is astounding.

And I've stated already that I don't know anything about the subject. I'm deferring to the experts.

"No scientist worth his salt would state that since the climate is changing and man is burning fossil fuels"

WTF are you talking about? That's exactly what they are saying. 97-98% of all scientists in the field.

Really incredible level of ignorance here lately. Vaccines, evolution, global warming, science all bad. Just doesn't 'feel' right. We can just figure it all out ourselves n stuff.

Next time you get a tooth ache do the same thing. Figure out how to take care of it yourself. Use the google. Don't trust those dentists. They're just out to get your money and just drill every chance they get.
Buckwheat Offline
#130 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
My “facts and opinions” can beat up your “facts and opinions”. fog
teedubbya Offline
#131 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
mine are facts yours are opinions. ill informed opinions at that.
riverdog Offline
#132 Posted:
Joined: 03-28-2008
Posts: 2,600
teedubbya wrote:
mine are facts yours are opinions. ill informed opinions at that.


Heheheheh, now we're getting to the heart of the matter.LOL
tailgater Offline
#133 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
Wow. The ignorance in that last post is astounding.

And I've stated already that I don't know anything about the subject. I'm deferring to the experts.

"No scientist worth his salt would state that since the climate is changing and man is burning fossil fuels"

WTF are you talking about? That's exactly what they are saying. 97-98% of all scientists in the field.

Really incredible level of ignorance here lately. Vaccines, evolution, global warming, science all bad. Just doesn't 'feel' right. We can just figure it all out ourselves n stuff.

Next time you get a tooth ache do the same thing. Figure out how to take care of it yourself. Use the google. Don't trust those dentists. They're just out to get your money and just drill every chance they get.




97 to 98% of all climate experts agree that man is causing the current climate change?
Really?

And here I thought I was discussing a topic honestly.

You're not just a liar. You're a terrible liar.
A little hyperbole is fine when making a point. But to state that only 2 to 3% of all climate scientists have abandoned algore's template and looked at the data without preconceived notions is a stretch even for a wacked out moonbat leftist like yourself.



And for the record "deferring to only those experts who happen to agree lockstep with your political bias" is not the same as using strong data to support your position.

I want the same thing that the climate fear-mongers want: Clean energy from renewable sources.
I just choose not to lie in order to achieve the goal. You and I differ on this aspect. So be it.
victor809 Offline
#134 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
97 to 98% of all climate experts agree that man is causing the current climate change?
Really?

And here I thought I was discussing a topic honestly.

You're not just a liar. You're a terrible liar.
A little hyperbole is fine when making a point. But to state that only 2 to 3% of all climate scientists have abandoned algore's template and looked at the data without preconceived notions is a stretch even for a wacked out moonbat leftist like yourself.

TG's kinda got you there Fuzz.

To be able to say 98% (or any %) believe.... you'd have to define what counts as a climate expert. Then you'd have to show some sort of study which survey's a statistically significant number of the population defined above (climate experts)...

Then you'd have to defend people claiming that your definition of "climate expert" isn't correct (ie, do we only accept PhD's, or is a masters in Climatology acceptable? What if someone got a PhD in Climatology from one of those whacko bible schools that think dinosaurs exist? etc etc.)

While I'd be willing to bet where over 50% of most of the climatology "experts" will land if surveyed, I doubt there's a legit study actually done. And the only unsupported % allowed in these forums is 98.2%
DadZilla3 Offline
#135 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
teedubbya wrote:
easy for you to say

I think we should all start acting like adults don't you agree Mr. Poopypants?


That's it, I'm taking my ball and going home. Not talking
HockeyDad Offline
#136 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
victor809 wrote:
While I'd be willing to bet where over 50% of most of the climatology "experts" will land if surveyed, I doubt there's a legit study actually done. And the only unsupported % allowed in these forums is 98.2%



I agree with the rugby queer's assessment.
DrafterX Offline
#137 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
LOL
bloody spaniard Offline
#138 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
LOL! Victor went waaaay out on a limb on that one.
FuzzNJ Offline
#139 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
victor809 wrote:
TG's kinda got you there Fuzz.

To be able to say 98% (or any %) believe.... you'd have to define what counts as a climate expert. Then you'd have to show some sort of study which survey's a statistically significant number of the population defined above (climate experts)...

Then you'd have to defend people claiming that your definition of "climate expert" isn't correct (ie, do we only accept PhD's, or is a masters in Climatology acceptable? What if someone got a PhD in Climatology from one of those whacko bible schools that think dinosaurs exist? etc etc.)

While I'd be willing to bet where over 50% of most of the climatology "experts" will land if surveyed, I doubt there's a legit study actually done. And the only unsupported % allowed in these forums is 98.2%


Post 90 has a link and lots of information on that:



FuzzNJ wrote:
There aren't any of those. Over 98% of all scientists who work in the field disagree with you and where they disagree with their colleagues is on issues like what can be done, when it should be done, if it even could be done and what the effects will be.



Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Scientific Societies

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)

American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

National Science Academies

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)

International academies: The Science of Climate Change

"Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)

Research

National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices

"Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010

U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

"Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes

"Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'... Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

IPCC defines "very likely" as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.

Sign-on Statements

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
"We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation." (2011)

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. "... For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ... The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. ...Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." (2010)

U.S. Scientists and Economists' Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

"We call on our nation's leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate." (2008)

Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists

"If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline." (2005)

Last Revised: 03/07/11


http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

FuzzNJ Offline
#140 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
FuzzNJ Offline
#141 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
More info. for the information challanged.
victor809 Offline
#142 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
FuzzNJ wrote:
Post 90 has a link and lots of information on that:






Yes, you've got lots of different climate societies which agree with you. However, that doesn't equal 98 percent... Hell, I don't know how many societies there are, and what percentage of each of these societies believes this... (If 75% of a group believes something, then the group will support the idea. It's very possible that 49% of each of those groups doesn't believe in it).

Yes, a lot of people believe that humans are having an impact on the environment. Yes, I myself believe it. But a blanket statement like "98% believe X" is clearly a fake number... therefore it must be 98.2%
FuzzNJ Offline
#143 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Enjoy
victor809 Offline
#144 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

The full text is above.
That seems pretty good. All you guys need to do now is get in a fight over the criteria of who is a published climate expert....
I'll get you started

(insert argument over the bias because climate experts who don't believe in ACC can't get published because of the evil climate change cliques, therefore weren't included in the study)

(insert counterargument that "experts" who don't believe in ACC likely were educated at Bob Jones university)
DrafterX Offline
#145 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
pakistani climate experts don't count... Not talking Not talking Not talking
FuzzNJ Offline
#146 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
It's fun being called a liar and stuff when you know and have the data to back up what you are saying.
DrafterX Offline
#147 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
FuzzNJ wrote:
It's fun being called a liar and stuff when you know and have the data to back up what you are saying.



if your backup data came from the internets then it must be true.... Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#148 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,606
Gore is a carpetbagging POS.

A fruad and a hypocrit.
victor809 Offline
#149 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
FuzzNJ wrote:
It's fun being called a liar and stuff when you know and have the data to back up what you are saying.


see... now no one likes a gloater.
FuzzNJ Offline
#150 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrafterX wrote:
if your backup data came from the internets then it must be true.... Mellow


Um. . .
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>