Spank!

[Commander Kinsey]

What an OCD moron....


Dear [made up name, my 4th account I believe],
You have received a warning at Parrot Forum - Parrot Owner's Community.

Reason:
Insulted Other Member(s)

Greetings;
You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.

Primary cause:
You ignored, belittled, trolled, insulted, and attempted to ridicule me in moderator capacity.

You have transgressed paragraphs seven and nine of the Parrot Forum Rules.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I hate moderators with a passion as they start off fine but seem to lose
their sense of humour and get crotchety as time progresses.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:op.01sot...@ryzen.lan...

[Fredxx]

Perhaps one day you'll take the hint and refrain from insulting another
member.

If you don't regard your insult to be one, then I suggest you reconsider
researching the matter of what constitutes an insult to those around you.

[Rod Speed]

Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

> I hate moderators with a passion

Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.

> as they start off fine but seem to lose their sense of humour and get
> crotchety as time progresses.

I didn’t, but then I never told anyone they couldn’t do anything.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:57:26 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> On 13/04/2021 16:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> What an OCD moron....
>>
>>
>> Dear [made up name, my 4th account I believe],
>> You have received a warning at Parrot Forum - Parrot Owner's Community.
>>
>> Reason:
>> Insulted Other Member(s)
>>
>> Greetings;
>> You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.
>>
>> Primary cause:
>> You ignored, belittled, trolled, insulted, and attempted to ridicule me
>> in moderator capacity.
>>
>> You have transgressed paragraphs seven and nine of the Parrot Forum Rules.
>
> Perhaps one day you'll take the hint and refrain from insulting another
> member.

I was told off for going slightly off topic. All I did was point out that conversations tend to do that. I didn't call him an OCD cunt.

> If you don't regard your insult to be one, then I suggest you reconsider
> researching the matter of what constitutes an insult to those around you.

It's impossible to insult someone. If I call you a moron and you are a moron, I've stated a fact. If I call you a moron and you aren't one, then I've lied.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:22:31 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
>> I hate moderators with a passion
>
> Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.

You can get them back by making extra accounts. Change your name, email address, writing style, browser, and IP address. My record is 38.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:22:31 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ---snip---

Oh look, since I unkillfiled Fred, Rod is back, funny that. Am I the sole reason you change names?

[Commander Kinsey]

One forum I'm in has more moderators than users. Probably because they keep banning everyone. It's got so bad they're now arguing with each other. I told one of them to ban himself because he just broke a rule he told me off for.

[Fredxx]

So what you are saying is you can't fathom the concept that you can
insult someone with a fact.

I guess knowing sufficient about you that shouldn't surprise me.

[Fredxx]

On 13/04/2021 17:58, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:22:31 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> I hate moderators with a passion
>>
>> Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.
>
> You can get them back by making extra accounts.  Change your name,

> emailaddress, writing style, browser, and IP address.  My record is 38.

Most of us have better things to do.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:56 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (aka "Commander Kinsey",
"James Wilkinson", "Steven Wanker","Bruce Farquar", "Fred Johnson, etc.),
the pathological resident idiot and attention whore of all the uk ngs,
blathered again:

<FLUSH the subnormal sociopathic trolling attention whore's latest
attention-baiting sick bullshit unread again>


--
damdu...@yahoo.co.uk about Birdbrain Macaw's (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL)
trolling:
"He is a well known attention seeking troll and every reply you
make feeds him.
Starts many threads most of which die quick as on the UK groups anyone
with sense Kill filed him ages ago which is why he now cross posts to
the US groups for a new audience.
This thread was unusual in that it derived and continued without him
to a large extent and his silly questioning is an attempt to get
noticed again."
MID: <be195d5jh0hktj054...@4ax.com>

--
ItsJoanNotJoann addressing Birdbrain Macaw's (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"You're an annoying troll and I'm done with you and your
stupidity."
MID: <e39a6a7f-9677-4e78...@googlegroups.com>

--
AndyW addressing Birdbrain:
"Troll or idiot?...
You have been presented with a viewpoint with information, reasoning,
historical cases, citations and references to back it up and wilfully
ignore all going back to your idea which has no supporting information."
MID: <KaToA.263621$g93.2...@fx10.am4>

--
Phil Lee adressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are too stupid to be wasting oxygen."
MID: <uv2u4clurscpat3g2...@4ax.com>

--
Phil Lee describing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I've never seen such misplaced pride in being a fucking moronic motorist."
MID: <j7fb6ct83igfd1g99...@4ax.com>

--
Tony944 addressing Birdbrain Macaw:
"I seen and heard many people but you are on top of list being first class
ass hole jerk. ...You fit under unconditional Idiot and should be put in
mental institution.
MID: <VLCdnYC5HK1Z4S3F...@giganews.com>

--
Pelican to Birdbrain Macaw:
"Ok. I'm persuaded . You are an idiot."
MID: <obru31$nao$3...@dont-email.me>

--
DerbyDad03 addressing Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"Frigging Idiot. Get the hell out of my thread."
MID: <4d907253-b3b9-40d4...@googlegroups.com>

--
Kerr Mudd-John about Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey LOL):
"It's like arguing with a demented frog."
MID: <op.yy3c0...@dell3100.workgroup>

--
Mr Pounder Esquire about Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"the piss poor delivery boy with no hot running water, 11 cats and
several parrots living in his hovel."
MID: <odqtgc$iug$1...@dont-email.me>

--
Rob Morley about Birdbrain:
"He's a perennial idiot"
MID: <20170519215057.56a1f1d4@Mars>

--
JoeyDee to Birdbrain
"I apologize for thinking you were a jerk. You're just someone with an IQ
lower than your age, and I accept that as a reason for your comments."
MID: <0001HW.1EE2D20300...@news.eternal-september.org>

--
Sam Plusnet about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"He's just desperate to be noticed. Any attention will do, no matter how
negative it may be."
MID: <rOmdndd_O7u8iK7E...@brightview.co.uk>

--
thekma...@gmail.com asking Birdbrain:
"What, were you dropped on your head as a child?"
MID: <58ddfad5-d9a5-4031...@googlegroups.com>

--
Christie addressing endlessly driveling Birdbrain Macaw (now "Commander
Kinsey" LOL):
"What are you resurrecting that old post of mine for? It's from last
month some time. You're like a dog who's just dug up an old bone they
hid in the garden until they were ready to have another go at it."
MID: <59d8b0db...@news.eternal-september.org>

--
Mr Pounder's fitting description of Birdbrain Macaw:
"You are a well known fool, a tosser, a pillock, a stupid unemployable
sponging failure who will always live alone and will die alone. You will not
be missed."
MID: <orree6$on2$1...@dont-email.me>

--
Richard to pathetic wanker Hucker:
"You haven't bred?
Only useful thing you've done in your pathetic existence."
MID: <orvctf$l5m$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

--
cl...@snyder.on.ca about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
""not the sharpest knife in the drawer"'s parents sure made a serious
mistake having him born alive -- A total waste of oxygen, food, space,
and bandwidth."
MID: <s5e9uclqpnabteheh...@4ax.com>

--
Mr Pounder exposing sociopathic Birdbrain:
"You will always be a lonely sociopath living in a shithole with no hot
running water with loads of stinking cats and a few parrots."
MID: <os5m1i$8m1$1...@dont-email.me>

--
francis about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"He seems to have a reputation as someone of limited intelligence"
MID: <cf06cdd9-8bb8-469c...@googlegroups.com>

--
Peter Moylan about Birdbrain (now "Commander Kinsey" LOL):
"If people like JWS didn't exist, we would have to find some other way to
explain the concept of "invincible ignorance"."
MID: <otofc8$tbg$2...@dont-email.me>

--
Lewis about nym-shifting Birdbrain:
"Typical narcissist troll, thinks his shit is so grand he has the right to
try to force it on everyone."<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest
trollshit unread>
MID: <slrnq16c27....@jaka.local>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:52:38 +0100, Brainless & Daft, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

> I hate moderators with a passion as they start off fine but seem to lose
> their sense of humour and get crotchety as time progresses.
> Brian

I hate troll-feeding senile ASSHOLES like you that are actually so useless
and senile that they are THANKFUL that some clinically insane sociopathic
troll keeps baiting them!

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 02:22:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the subnormal trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

[Peeler]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:10:49 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:

> Most of us have better things to do.

YOU certainly don't, you troll-feeding senile idiot who never misses out an
opportunity to feed a troll! <BG>

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

>>> I hate moderators with a passion

>> Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.

> You can get them back by making extra accounts.

The better operations can pick those who do that.

> Change your name, email address, writing style,

That’s a lot easier said than done. We are currently
watching one who did post for quite a while as
Arlen Holder trying that in a few groups right now.
Plenty can pick that its him returning.

> browser, and IP address. My record is 38.

>>> as they start off fine but seem to lose their sense of humour and get
>>> crotchety as time progresses.

>> I didn’t, but then I never told anyone they couldn’t do anything.

I became the moderator because some clown tried to appoint
himself as moderator and we gave him the bums rush and
fidonet did require that there was a moderator.

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

> Oh look, since I unkillfiled Fred, Rod is back, funny
> that. Am I the sole reason you change names?

Nope, plenty of others play childish games with kill files.

Just like little kids, close your eyes, put your hands
over your ears and chant "nyah nyah can't hear ya"

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote

> One forum I'm in has more moderators than users. Probably because they
> keep banning everyone. It's got so bad they're now arguing with each
> other.

> I told one of them to ban himself because he just broke a rule he told me
> off for.

Yeah, I got that with one online forum, the fucker
banned me for saying someone was trolling and
said he did that because I was a troll.

[Andy Burns]

Commander Kinsey wrote:

> You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.

Next level penalty: clipped wings and no cuttlefish for a fortnight?

[Peeler]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:44:47 +0100, Andy Burned, another troll-feeding
senile ASSHOLE, blathered:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.
>
> Next level penalty: clipped wings and no cuttlefish for a fortnight?

More likely yet another prolonged stay in a mental institution,
troll-feeding senile asshole!

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:19:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish wanker and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse shit doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky shit, but then why does vegetarian human shit stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow shit stinks too."

Message-ID: <fv5f1t...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:21:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic

blather unread again>

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID: <fvlcdc...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 06:24:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own shit?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the shit."

MID: <fv66ka...@mid.individual.net>

[Tekkie©]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:52:38 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa) posted for all of us to
digest...

>
> I hate moderators with a passion as they start off fine but seem to lose
> their sense of humour and get crotchety as time progresses.
> Brian

This group doesn't have a moderator. You perhaps weakened your statement by
posting it to so many groups. Plonking posters can provide relief.

--
Tekkie

[%%]

"Tekkie©" <Tek...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D5odI.4131$wd1....@fx41.iad...

>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:52:38 +0100, Brian Gaff (Sofa) posted for all of us
> to
> digest...
>
>>
>> I hate moderators with a passion as they start off fine but seem to lose
>> their sense of humour and get crotchety as time progresses.
>> Brian
>
> This group doesn't have a moderator.

No one ever said it did. It was an online group being discussed.

> You perhaps weakened your statement
> by posting it to so many groups.

He didn't, the one he replied to did.

> Plonking posters can provide relief.

That's what Micky decided to do with you.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 07:38:56 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I get it froma a mailing list if I post several messages to a thread even
though the later ones had not got here when I wrote the first ones, it seems
one has to use a crystal ball or maybe make copious notes then splurge all
your replies into one post which is no doubt then too long. It amazes me
that perfectly sighted people cannot grasp the art of using folders
automatically sorting their emails into lists and personal or cannot simply
use a different email for mail lists so all the important stuff comes into
their primary.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:idluqe...@mid.individual.net...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

No don't wind them up like that is exactly what they want so they can point
at you and say they were right about you all along. Simply say I see, fine
go away for a bit then come backbut if the area is not of great importance
simply vote with your keyboard in my case or mouse and let the boot lickers
have it to themselves they deserve each other.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:op.01sr2...@ryzen.lan...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

The point is most bullies love you to respond as they can then ban you for
ever saying they were right all along and you have no right of reply as you
are dumped and coming back as somebody else is counter productive. You have
few choices, See their point of view and reason with them personally not on
the list, if that fails just don't bother with that forum the chances are
that the only people on it after a while will be the boot lickers and the
moderators pals anyhow.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:idme65...@mid.individual.net...

[Peeler]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:28:43 +0100, Brainless & Daft, the notorious,

troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

> No don't wind them up like that is exactly what they

Wind all you senile assholes up is exactly what the trolling Scottish wanker
and attention whore wants, you disgusting troll-feeding blind asshole!

[Commander Kinsey]

You're getting it now. If you're short and I call you short, I've just made an observation. You already knew you were short. It would be like me telling you it's raining when you're soaking wet, you already knew, no information was passed, I can't have insulted you.

> I guess knowing sufficient about you that shouldn't surprise me.

I think here you're trying an insult, but as I explained already, there's no point. Everything you could possibly know about me, I know about me. You've not told me anything knew. Perhaps if you pointed out something I never knew, like "you've got a shit stain on your jeans".

[Commander Kinsey]

You can't let these power hungry morons keep their ego inflated.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:21:52 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Oh look, since I unkillfiled Fred, Rod is back, funny
>> that. Am I the sole reason you change names?
>
> Nope, plenty of others play childish games with kill files.

But since on this occasion only I removed you (and only because I accidentally saw a post that was interesting) why have you gone back to a different name which will be filtered by others?

> Just like little kids, close your eyes, put your hands
> over your ears and chant "nyah nyah can't hear ya"

No, it's called filtering out the posts I'm not interested in.

And speaking of childish, changing your name to get round those killfiles is surely also childish? And why do you only have a small number of them? Do you get tired of it before we do?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 21:24:13 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> One forum I'm in has more moderators than users. Probably because they
>> keep banning everyone. It's got so bad they're now arguing with each
>> other.
>
>> I told one of them to ban himself because he just broke a rule he told me
>> off for.
>
> Yeah, I got that with one online forum, the fucker
> banned me for saying someone was trolling and
> said he did that because I was a troll.

I got told off for being rude because I said "remove that spam from your signature". I even tried to explain it was detracting from the paid spam the forum had plastered all over the place, but they didn't understand.

[Commander Kinsey]

How on earth would it weaken his statement by sending it to more people?

[Commander Kinsey]

I was also told off for replying several times in a thread at once. I hadn't read the thread for a few days, and 6 people had made entirely different points, so I replied to them individually. I tried to point out to the fuckwit moderator that shoving them all in one would make it tedious for the next person to extract the bits they wanted, but it fell on deaf ears.

[Commander Kinsey]

Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today". Turns out the admin was a religious nutter. So I made an account precisely the same but with a number 2 at the end just to rub it in, and let rip about moronic religions, then used many real swearwords.

[Commander Kinsey]

On another forum (a games forum) I got a 1 day ban, then a 3 day ban, then a 7 day ban, then.... guess what the next one was? 1 day. I guess just like the game, the forum has an integer overflow.

[Commander Kinsey]

I find the best thing is to take the piss out of them in front of everyone else.

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Oh look, since I unkillfiled Fred, Rod is back, funny
>>> that. Am I the sole reason you change names?

>> Nope, plenty of others play childish games with kill files.

> But since on this occasion only I removed you
> (and only because I accidentally saw a post that
> was interesting) why have you gone back to a
> different name which will be filtered by others?

Because I don't care if the fools that use kill files read this post.

>> Just like little kids, close your eyes, put your hands
>> over your ears and chant "nyah nyah can't hear ya"

> No, it's called filtering out the posts I'm not interested in.

Trouble is that as you discovered, you cant usually find
that nothing one individual ever says is interesting.

You can with a few like peeler, but there isnt any point
in killfiling, I just don't read any of his posts at all.

> And speaking of childish, changing your name to
> get round those killfiles is surely also childish?

Nope, it ensures that they see the response.

> And why do you only have a small number of them?
> Do you get tired of it before we do?

Nope.

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote

> Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
> silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
> in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
> Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.

Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:12:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--

Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rodent Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rodent: "Then fuck the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try fucking them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try fucking them. Try it and see."

Message-ID: <g3cjf7...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:06:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--

[Fredxx]

No, I've got it ad you haven't. I repeat, "So what you are saying is you

can't fathom the concept that you can insult someone with a fact"

You are a moron. Both a fact and an insult. Do you recognise these words
as an insult? If "yes" then you are a moron. If "no" then you are less
of a moron.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:12:30 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:

> No, I've got it ad you haven't. I repeat, "So what you are saying is you
> can't fathom the concept that you can insult someone with a fact"
>
> You are a moron.

Yeah, but you STILL can't resist his shit, senile moron! LOL

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>> Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
>> silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
>> in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
>> Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.
>
> Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
> using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.

You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded science.

[Commander Kinsey]

Since I know I'm not a moron, all you've done is lied. Therefore your "insult" has not upset me at all and cannot be called an insult.

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:op.01wkd...@ryzen.lan...

In some ways it actually helped it dramatically, particularly
with quite a few vicars etc with lots of time on their hands
choosing to get involved in observational science with plants
and geology etc particularly. One of the weirder quirks.

Same with Mendel and other plant breeding in monasterys.

Yes, Darwin did delay publishing his Origin of Species
because he knew what a shit fight that would produce
with the religious fundys and some others like Bruno
quite literally got burnt at the stake for his science and
that presumably had a big effect on others considering
doing real science instead of just accepting what their
stupid collection of fairy storys had to say about things,
but its important to not forget that it happened both ways.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:18:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--

TYPICAL retarded "conversation" between sociopath Rodent and sociopath
Birdbrain from August 26th 2018:

Birdbrain: "I have one head but 5 fingers."

Senile Rodent: "Obvious lie. You hairy legged cross dressers are so inbred
that you all have two heads."

Birdbrain: "You're the one that likes hairy legs remember?"

Senile Rodent: "The problem isnt the hairy legs, it's the gross inbreeding
that
produces two headed unemployables like you."

Birdbrain: "So why did you mention hairy legs?"

Senile Rodent: "Because that's what those who arent actually stupid enough
to shave their legs have."

Birdbrain: "You only have hairy legs if both of the following are true:
1) You're quite far back on the evolutionary scale.
2) You haven't learned what a razor is for."

Senile Rodent: "Only a terminal fuckwit or a woman shaves their legs."

Birdbrain: "There is literally zero point in having hair all over your
body."

Senile Rodent: "There is even less point in wasting your time changing what
you are born with."

MID: <fugfg5...@mid.individual.net>

[Snit]

On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.01wkd...@ryzen.lan>:

Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:15:17 GMT, Shit the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:

>> You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
>> science.
>
> Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

A few years ago the unwashed Scottish troll and wanker wasn't yet around for
you to suck him off every time he shows up, you idiotic senile sucker of
unwashed troll cock!

[Fredxx]

Nope, you've just proven you're a moron in denial.

[rbowman]

Do you know who first formulated the Big Bang theory? Ever here of
Gregor Mendel? Blaise Pascal?

Quite a few scientists manage to have a foot in both worlds. In general
the Catholics seem more flexible than the Protestants, particularly the
'gimme that old time religion' branch.

[Snit]

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
<idsa7q...@mid.individual.net>:

In the past the two were heavily tied together... but that is no longer the
case. There are still some religious scientists, but scientists tend to be
atheist at a higher level than the general public. They also tend to be more
liberal, which makes sense given how at least in the US conservatives tend to
reject our best evidence.

[Fred]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:idsa7q...@mid.individual.net...

Don't recall too many Protestants burning
scientific heretics at the stake, quite literally.

[Xeno]

On 14/4/21 2:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>

>> I hate moderators with a passion
>

> Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.

But they can get rid of trolling pests lie you - so that's a bonus.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:43:41 +0100, Fredxx, the notorious, troll-feeding,
senile smartass, blathered again:

>

> Nope, you've just proven you're a moron in denial.

Nope, you've just proven that you ARE a notorious sucker of troll cock,
senile smartass!

[Peeler]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:14:23 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

>> You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
>> science.
>
> Do you know who first formulated the Big Bang theory? Ever here of
> Gregor Mendel? Blaise Pascal?

You'd better worry who first formulated the little adage: DON'T FEED THE
TROLL, you troll-feeding sick senile asshole!

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:37:25 +1000, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest trollshit unread>

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <XnsA97071CF43...@85.214.115.223>

[Rod Speed]

"Xeno" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:idsvdc...@mid.individual.net...

> On 14/4/21 2:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Brian Gaff (Sofa) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> I hate moderators with a passion
>>
>> Yeah, it does attract control freaks like shit does with flys.
>
> But they can get rid of trolling pests lie you

Nope, because its so easy to open a new account,
you pathetic excuse for a trolling pest.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:04:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH more of the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit>

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.01wkd...@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
>>>> silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
>>>> in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
>>>> Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
>>> using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.
>>
>> You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
>> science.
>
> Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.

In English please.

[Commander Kinsey]

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

[Commander Kinsey]

Rule 7 of one forum I'm on, displayed every time you post (unless you block it with an ad blocker) is "if you're banned from posting, don't create another account". That's just asking for people to do it! Mind you, I don't think it's possible to get banned (apart from a temporary 2 day ban, so I just save up my replies and annoy them more at once) - I've actually had 38 warnings and bans from them, including a message saying "if you don't stop doing that I'll have to warn you again". They really are round the twist.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.01yey...@ryzen.lan>:

Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
We can see this with COVID, man-made global climate change, research on
reduction of abortions, and in some cases even things like evolution.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.01yex...@ryzen.lan>:

The two have a history that is tied together.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:10:05 GMT, Shit the git, the notorious,

troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:

>> In English please.
>
> The two have a history that is tied together.

NOT as tied together as you two perverted freaks are!

[Peeler]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:09:40 GMT, Shit the git, the notorious,

troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


>

> Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
> We can see this with COVID,

What we see is that you CAN'T wean your senile gob away from the unwashed
Scottish troll's cock, senile sucker of troll cock!

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:op.01yex...@ryzen.lan...

He means that more than a couple of hundred years
ago, most of the science was done by the religious.
And some of them like Mendel made tremendous
advances in our scientific knowledge.

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:op.01yey...@ryzen.lan...

Plenty of them don't, they work for industry.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 06:54:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--

Another typical retarded "conversation" between the two resident idiots:

Birdbrain: "But imagine how cool it was to own slaves."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, right. Feed them, clothe them, and fix them when
they're broken.
After all, you paid good money for them. Then you've got to keep an eye
on them all the time."

Birdbrain: "Better than having to give them wages on top of that."

Senile Rodent: "Specially when they make more slaves for you
and produce their own food and clothes."

MID: <fvlcdc...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 06:55:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


<FLUSH the two subnormal sociopathic cretins' endless absolutely idiotic
blather>

--

Another typical retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own shit?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the shit."

MID: <fv66ka...@mid.individual.net>

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 1:55:07 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idubth...@mid.individual.net>:

Right. But even the ones that work for the petroleum industry stopped their
denial of man-made global climate change.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 1:54:22 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idubs5...@mid.individual.net>:

Pretty much.

[Rod Speed]

"Snit" <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vbneI.10394$OF5....@fx07.iad...

No they didn’t and plenty who do deny man-made
global climate change arent paid to do that.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 2:31:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idue14...@mid.individual.net>:

They did drop their denial. Here is their current page on the topic:

https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change

As far as those who deny it, there are about 70 scientists people point to,
many of them dead, and several of whom are not even experts in the field. At
this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group that still
denies the evidence.

[Rod Speed]

"Snit" <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:GFneI.5829$N%1....@fx28.iad...

Nope, plenty didn’t.

> Here is their current page on the topic:

> https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change

There isnt just one group of them.

> As far as those who deny it, there are about 70 scientists people point
> to,
> many of them dead, and several of whom are not even experts in the field.

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group that
> still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority
of scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence
showed that they are real.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 08:09:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>> They did drop their denial.
>
> Nope, plenty didn’t.
>

Yeah, keep showing that troll-feeding senile asshole what he gets for
feeding a trolling senile asshole like you, senile Rodent! LMAO

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 3:09:56 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idug9q...@mid.individual.net>:

>>>> Right. But even the ones that work for the petroleum industry stopped
>>>> their
>>>> denial of man-made global climate change.
>>>
>>> No they didn’t and plenty who do deny man-made
>>> global climate change arent paid to do that.
>
>> They did drop their denial.
>
> Nope, plenty didn’t.
>
>> Here is their current page on the topic:
>
>> https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change
>
> There isnt just one group of them.

There are those that still do -- I meant their "scientific" group.

Are there others still in denial?

>> As far as those who deny it, there are about 70 scientists people point
>> to,
>> many of them dead, and several of whom are not even experts in the field.
>
> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if they did
not they would not be the experts!)

>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group that
>> still denies the evidence.
>
> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority
> of scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence
> showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists likely
changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

[Rod Speed]

Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Right. But even the ones that work for the petroleum industry stopped
>>>>> their denial of man-made global climate change.

>>>> No they didn’t and plenty who do deny man-made
>>>> global climate change arent paid to do that.

>>> They did drop their denial.

>> Nope, plenty didn’t.

>>> Here is their current page on the topic:

>>> https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change

>> There isnt just one group of them.

> There are those that still do -- I meant their "scientific" group.

> Are there others still in denial?

Corse there are.

>>> As far as those who deny it, there are about 70 scientists people point
>>> to,
>>> many of them dead, and several of whom are not even experts in the
>>> field.

>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if they
> did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
>>> that still denies the evidence.

>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
>> denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the
change we have seen is man made. It wasn’t that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about global cooling.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate of whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 4:10:43 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idujrr...@mid.individual.net>:
...

>
>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.
>
>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if they
>> did not they would not be the experts!)
>
> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the world
beat the predictions?

>
>
>>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
>>>> that still denies the evidence.
>
>>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
>>> denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.
>
>> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
>> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.
>
> And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

> Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from
> the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of the
> change we have seen is man made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly. So,
yes, there is some disagreement.

> It wasn’t that long ago
> that most scientists were hyperventilating about global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

> Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
> CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
> has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for a
huge percentage of the warming we see.

> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
> will make any useful difference to world climate of whether
> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
> than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

[Rod Speed]

Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

>>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
>>> they did not they would not be the experts!)

>> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
>> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

> Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
> world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didn’t beat predictions.

>>>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
>>>>> that still denies the evidence.

>>>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
>>>> denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

>>> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
>>> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

>> And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.

> Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

>> Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from the ice ages
>> etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
>> made.

> The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

That’s bullshit and the models clearly don’t predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

> So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

>> It wasn’t that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
>> global cooling.

> "Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bullshit. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

>> Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
>> CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
>> has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

> We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
> a huge percentage of the warming we see.

That’s mindless bullshit too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy

>> will make any useful difference to world climate or whether

>> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
>> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
>> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
>> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
>> than they are being laid down.

> Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful. And solar fucks power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is fucked in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

[pothead]

Just in case you are not aware, you are replying to one of USENET's most
prolific trolls. The snit Michael Glasser troll.

See the links in my siggie for details regarding this waste of skin.


--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28:10 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<iduod1...@mid.individual.net>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.
>
>>>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
>>>> they did not they would not be the experts!)
>
>>> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
>>> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.
>
>> Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
>> world beat the predictions?
>
> Nope, the world as a whole didn’t beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to. Usually
when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

>>>>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
>>>>>> that still denies the evidence.
>
>>>>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
>>>>> denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.
>
>>>> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
>>>> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.
>
>>> And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.
>
>> Yes, we keep leaning more.
>
> And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Where are you hearing otherwise?

>
>
>>> Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from the ice ages
>>> etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
>>> made.
>
>> The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.
>
> That’s bullshit and the models clearly don’t predict what actually
> happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

Again: source?

This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:


https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

>> So, yes, there is some disagreement.
>
> And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

The evidence says otherwise.

>>> It wasn’t that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
>>> global cooling.
>
>> "Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.
>
> Bullshit. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Of course you have a source, right?

Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.


https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/

>>> Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
>>> CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
>>> has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.
>
>> We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
>> a huge percentage of the warming we see.
>
> That’s mindless bullshit too. We havent in fact seen anything
> even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
> have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again: source?

>>> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
>>> will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
>>> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
>>> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
>>> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
>>> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
>>> than they are being laid down.
>
>> Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.
>
> Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power. It is an option -- but we do not have a good
way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent rods. The current plan of
burying them in the most seismically active mountain range is pretty daft. And
look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.

> And solar fucks power distribution
> and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is fucked in the
> sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
> lower latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Look at Germany.

Please try to use evidence.

[Rod Speed]

Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

>>>>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
>>>>> they did not they would not be the experts!)

>>>> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
>>>> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

>>> Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
>>> world beat the predictions?

>> Nope, the world as a whole didn’t beat predictions.

> Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.

You're the one that needs to provide that
given you claim it exceeded predictions.

> Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
> debunked info:

> https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

> But happy to see what you have.

See above.

>>>>>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
>>>>>>> group that still denies the evidence.

>>>>>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
>>>>>> scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
>>>>>> they are real.

>>>>> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
>>>>> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

>>>> And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.

>>> Yes, we keep leaning more.

>> And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

> Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.

Bullshit we do prediction wise.

> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

That’s bullshit. They arent in fact doing anything of the sort.

> Where are you hearing otherwise?

Observing that the predictions are way off.

>>>> Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from the ice ages
>>>> etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
>>>> made.

>>> The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall
>>> correctly.

>> That’s bullshit and the models clearly don’t predict what actually
>> happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

> Again: source?

Again, you are the one that needs to provide the source.

> This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:

> https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

That’s bullshit.

>>> So, yes, there is some disagreement.

>> And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

> The evidence says otherwise.

Bullshit it does with the last decade.

>>>> It wasn’t that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating
>>>> about global cooling.

>>> "Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

>> Bullshit. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

> Of course you have a source, right?

You don’t have one yourself.

> Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
> accurate.

> https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/

More bullshit.

>>>> Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
>>>> CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
>>>> has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

>>> We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts
>>> for a huge percentage of the warming we see.

>> That’s mindless bullshit too. We havent in fact seen anything
>> even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
>> have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

> Again: source?

Don’t need one with such a dramatic difference.

>>>> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
>>>> will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
>>>> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
>>>> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
>>>> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
>>>> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
>>>> than they are being laid down.

>>> Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

>> Nukes arent harmful.

> I assume you mean nuclear power.

Yep.

> It is an option --

It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.

> but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent
> rods.

We have always had a good way to deal with
those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.

The only reason we don’t do that at the moment is
because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

> The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active mountain
> range is pretty daft.

Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
up more uranium. Fuck all of the original fuel rod
is actually consumed.

> And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.
So do nukes that way instead of fucking up like both those have
done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.

> But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
> building.

And the massive downside of not being useful at high
latitudes and for a large chunk of every day even at
low latitudes. Nukes work fine in both situations and
in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

>> And solar fucks power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
>> and is fucked in the
>> sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the lower
>> latitudes.

> That is complete and utter nonsense.

Bullshit it is.

> Look at Germany.

Which was actually stupid enough to shut
down perfectly viable nukes and replace
them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
available and which has by far the most
expensive electricity around, because
they have been that stupid.

> Please try to use evidence.

That is the evidence that solar is fucked compared with nukes.

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 8:25:29 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idv2pg...@mid.individual.net>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.
>
>>>>>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
>>>>>> they did not they would not be the experts!)
>
>>>>> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
>>>>> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.
>
>>>> Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
>>>> world beat the predictions?
>
>>> Nope, the world as a whole didn’t beat predictions.
>
>> Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.
>
> You're the one that needs to provide that
> given you claim it exceeded predictions.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

>> Usually when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this
>> debunked info:
>
>> https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/
>
>> But happy to see what you have.
>
> See above.

I did. :)

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. Again, that is
what I figured.

>>>>>>>> At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific
>>>>>>>> group that still denies the evidence.
>
>>>>>>> Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of
>>>>>>> scientists denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that
>>>>>>> they are real.
>
>>>>>> If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
>>>>>> likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.
>
>>>>> And that’s just as true of purported man made climate change.
>
>>>> Yes, we keep leaning more.
>
>>> And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.
>
>> Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.
>
> Bullshit we do prediction wise.

The evidence is contrary to your claim.

>>
>> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
>
> That’s bullshit. They arent in fact doing anything of the sort.

A claim you make with no support. OK.

>> Where are you hearing otherwise?
>
> Observing that the predictions are way off.

But you have no evidence of this. Fair enough.

>>>>> Its obvious that climate does change, that’s obvious from the ice ages
>>>>> etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
>>>>> made.
>
>>>> The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall
>>>> correctly.
>
>>> That’s bullshit and the models clearly don’t predict what actually
>>> happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.
>
>> Again: source?
>
> Again, you are the one that needs to provide the source.

I have no source to back your claims. Nor do you. Fair enough.

>> This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:
>
>>
>> https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
>
> That’s bullshit.

You do not believe the evidence. OK.

>>>> So, yes, there is some disagreement.
>
>>> And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .
>
>> The evidence says otherwise.
>
> Bullshit it does with the last decade.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating
>>>>> about global cooling.
>
>>>> "Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.
>
>>> Bullshit. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.
>
>> Of course you have a source, right?
>
> You don’t have one yourself.

I have peer reviewed research and every single internationally recognized
scientific group with a stance in the topic. You have denial and no evidence.

>
>
>> Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
>> accurate.
>
>>
>> https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/
>
> More bullshit.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

>
>
>>>>> Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
>>>>> CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
>>>>> has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.
>
>>>> We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts
>>>> for a huge percentage of the warming we see.
>
>>> That’s mindless bullshit too. We havent in fact seen anything
>>> even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
>>> have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>> Again: source?
>
> Don’t need one with such a dramatic difference.

You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That is
what I figured.

>>>>> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
>>>>> will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
>>>>> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
>>>>> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
>>>>> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
>>>>> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
>>>>> than they are being laid down.
>
>>>> Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.
>
>>> Nukes arent harmful.
>
>> I assume you mean nuclear power.
>
> Yep.
>
>> It is an option --
>
> It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
> that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.

Welcome you to show your support for this.

>> but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent
>> rods.
>
> We have always had a good way to deal with
> those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.
>
> The only reason we don’t do that at the moment is
> because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

Would love to see your evidence.

>> The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active mountain
>> range is pretty daft.
>
> Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
> It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
> new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
> up more uranium. Fuck all of the original fuel rod
> is actually consumed.

Great. Look forward to you evidence.

>> And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.
>
> Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.

Nor did I suggest it had... but seems you missed the point.

> So do nukes that way instead of fucking up like both those have
> done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
> way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
> where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.
>
>> But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
>> building.
>
> And the massive downside of not being useful at high
> latitudes and for a large chunk of every day even at
> low latitudes.

Batteries exist.

> Nukes work fine in both situations and
> in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

Open to your support of them as the best solution.

>>> And solar fucks power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
>>> and is fucked in the
>>> sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the lower
>>> latitudes.
>
>> That is complete and utter nonsense.
>
> Bullshit it is.
>
>> Look at Germany.
>
> Which was actually stupid enough to shut
> down perfectly viable nukes and replace
> them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
> available and which has by far the most
> expensive electricity around, because
> they have been that stupid.

I am speaking of their solar, which they have plenty of, even though they get
far less sun.

>> Please try to use evidence.
>
> That is the evidence that solar is fucked compared with nukes.

If so then you should be able to show it.

But your record is weak on that front.

[Rod Speed]

Easy to claim.

<reams of your trollshit flushed where it belongs>

>>>>>> And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
>>>>>> will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
>>>>>> it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
>>>>>> dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
>>>>>> stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
>>>>>> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
>>>>>> than they are being laid down.
>>
>>>>> Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.
>>
>>>> Nukes arent harmful.
>>
>>> I assume you mean nuclear power.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> It is an option --
>>
>> It is in fact the only viable approach if you believe
>> that atmospheric CO2 levels are a problem.
>
> Welcome you to show your support for this.

Just did.

>>> but we do not have a good way to deal with the fallout. I mean the
>>> spent rods.

>> We have always had a good way to deal with
>> those, reprocess them into new nuke fuel.

>> The only reason we don’t do that at the moment is
>> because its cheaper to dig up more uranium etc.

> Would love to see your evidence.

The evidence is those keeping them, fuckwit.

>>> The current plan of burying them in the most seismically active
>>> mountain range is pretty daft.
>>
>> Yes, it makes no sense to bury them anywhere.
>> It makes lots of sense to reprocess them into
>> new nuke fuel once that is cheaper than digging
>> up more uranium. Fuck all of the original fuel rod
>> is actually consumed.

> Great. Look forward to you evidence.

There is a wealth of evidence that fuck
all of the original fuel rod is consumed.

>>> And look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

>> Nothing like that happened in France and Germany or the USA.

> Nor did I suggest it had... but seems you missed the point.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>> So do nukes that way instead of fucking up like both those have
>> done. The west has never been stupid enough to do nukes the
>> way that russia has, or stupid enough to put the backup generators
>> where they can be flooded by a tsunami like the stupid japs did.

>>> But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with
>>> the building.

>> And the massive downside of not being useful at high latitudes and for a
>> large chunk of every day even at low latitudes.

> Batteries exist.

But are a stupid added cost and don’t last long.

>> Nukes work fine in both situations and
>> in fact the waste heat is useful at high latitudes.

> Open to your support of them as the best solution.

Already did that, fuckwit.

>>>> And solar fucks power distribution and isnt useful at higher latitudes
>>>> and is fucked in the sense that its only useful for part of the day
>>>> even at the lower latitudes.

>>> That is complete and utter nonsense.

>> Bullshit it is.

>>> Look at Germany.

>> Which was actually stupid enough to shut
>> down perfectly viable nukes and replace
>> them with burning by far the dirtiest coal
>> available and which has by far the most
>> expensive electricity around, because
>> they have been that stupid.

> I am speaking of their solar, which they have plenty of, even though they
> get far less sun.

And that produces the most expensive electricity
in western europe. France leaves them for dead.

<reams of your trollshit flushed where it belongs>

[Snit]

On Apr 16, 2021 at 9:01:57 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
<idv4ts...@mid.individual.net>:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.
>
>>>>>>>> Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence
>>>>>>>> (if they did not they would not be the experts!)
>
>>>>>>> Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
>>>>>>> recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.
>
>>>>>> Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as
>>>>>> the world beat the predictions?
>
>>>>> Nope, the world as a whole didn’t beat predictions.
>
>>>> Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to.
>
>>> You're the one that needs to provide that
>>> given you claim it exceeded predictions.
>
>> You have no research to back your claims, nor scientific sites. OK. That
>> is
>> what I figured.
>
> You have no research

Countered by the evidence provided.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, but I am not interested in you
making insane claims you cannot back and then ignoring the fact evidence has
been provided. If you ACTUALLY want to learn about man-made global climate
change this is a good place to start:

http://climate.nasa.gov

If you just want to deny the evidence I am simply not interested.

Facts matter. Evidence matters. You failed to show anything even close... and
then snipped or ignored when I did. What value is such a conversation? None
that I can see.

[Rod Speed]

Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote reams of trollshit.

All flushed where it belongs.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:10:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

> is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
> than they are being laid down.

That senile wanker still doesn't get what's the matter with you, eh, senile
Rodent? Must be your lucky day! LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.d...@sqwertz.com>

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 04:23:56 GMT, Shit the git, the notorious,

troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:

>

> Countered by the evidence provided.

You REALLY REALLY have a knack for continually sucking off the dumbest
trolls around, eh, Shit the Git? <G>

[Peeler]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 10:28:10 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH more of the abnormal trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit
unread>

[pothead]

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote reams of trollshit.
>
> All flushed where it belongs.

This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the "snitlist" documented in my
links below.

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"

Ask snit how he pissed on his cat.

[Steve Carroll]

On 2021-04-17, pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote:
> On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote reams of trollshit.
>>
>> All flushed where it belongs.
>
> This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the "snitlist" documented in my
> links below.
>
> 36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
> the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
> will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
> need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
> set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
> pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
> engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
> you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004
>
> It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

Oh no! You've quoted something from 'the bad years' ;)

[pothead]

While there are many quotes in those lists, #36 is IMHO a perfect
single paragraph description of snit.
This thread is just the latest example of snit behaving exactly like George
Graves describes.

Snit is like a self fulfilling prophecy. He proves those lists in one form
or another every day. It takes a rare type of idiot to manage that. Snit is
that idiot and then some.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:43:41 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> On 15/04/2021 19:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 01:12:30 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2021 18:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:10:15 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/2021 17:56, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:57:26 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2021 16:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> What an OCD moron....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear [made up name, my 4th account I believe],
>>>>>>>> You have received a warning at Parrot Forum - Parrot Owner's
>>>>>>>> Community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reason:
>>>>>>>> Insulted Other Member(s)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings;
>>>>>>>> You have received a one point infraction with ten day expiry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Primary cause:
>>>>>>>> You ignored, belittled, trolled, insulted, and attempted to
>>>>>>>> ridicule me
>>>>>>>> in moderator capacity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have transgressed paragraphs seven and nine of the Parrot Forum
>>>>>>>> Rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps one day you'll take the hint and refrain from insulting
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> member.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was told off for going slightly off topic. All I did was point out
>>>>>> that conversations tend to do that. I didn't call him an OCD cunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don't regard your insult to be one, then I suggest you
>>>>>>> reconsider
>>>>>>> researching the matter of what constitutes an insult to those around
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's impossible to insult someone. If I call you a moron and you
>>>>>> are a
>>>>>> moron, I've stated a fact. If I call you a moron and you aren't one,
>>>>>> then I've lied.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what you are saying is you can't fathom the concept that you can
>>>>> insult someone with a fact.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting it now. If you're short and I call you short, I've just
>>>> made an observation. You already knew you were short. It would be like
>>>> me telling you it's raining when you're soaking wet, you already knew,
>>>> no information was passed, I can't have insulted you.
>>>
>>> No, I've got it ad you haven't. I repeat, "So what you are saying is you
>>> can't fathom the concept that you can insult someone with a fact"
>>>
>>> You are a moron. Both a fact and an insult. Do you recognise these words
>>> as an insult? If "yes" then you are a moron. If "no" then you are less
>>> of a moron.
>>
>> Since I know I'm not a moron, all you've done is lied. Therefore your
>> "insult" has not upset me at all and cannot be called an insult.
>
> Nope, you've just proven you're a moron in denial.

I gave a sensible explanation of it, you didn't. You failed.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.01yey...@ryzen.lan>:

> Scientists are liberal because the conservative mindset is to deny evidence.
> We can see this with COVID,

No, we just don't make such a fuss over a small thing. A thing that kills 4 times less than cancer and 40 times less than the world population growth.

> man-made global climate change,

It was 1C here in Scotland a few days ago, in spring. There is no global warming.

> research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

> and in some cases even things like evolution.

Evolution could take place if we let coronavirus kill off the weak.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:10:05 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2021 at 10:59:28 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.01yex...@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 21:15:17 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2021 at 11:02:15 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>> <op.01wkd...@ryzen.lan>:

>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another account must be made so they don't get the last word in. The
>>>>>> silliest thing I got banned for was saying the word "damn". And not even
>>>>>> in a rude way, probably something like "the damn weather is awful today".
>>>>>> Turns out the admin was a religious nutter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I got the same thing from another religious nutter for
>>>>> using the term "hell of a lot", not a moderator in that case.
>>>>
>>>> You have to wonder how far we would be today if religion had not impeded
>>>> science.
>>>

>>> Until a few hundred years ago there was not much of a split.
>>
>> In English please.
>

> The two have a history that is tied together.

I doubt it. Religion did not help science. Just because some scientists were religious means nothing. If there had been no religion, those same people would still have become scientists.

[Rod Speed]

pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote reams of trollshit.

>> All flushed where it belongs.

> This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the
> "snitlist" documented in my links below.

Yep.

> 36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument
> with the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done.
> He will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
> need to be ALWAYS right at any cost.

No one ever drives me crazy, I just flush trollshit where it belongs.

> He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you
> into submission with his endless pedanticism. The only
> way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER engage him,
> it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you

No troll ever angers me.

> and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

> It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.

That’s why I flushed his trollshit where it belongs.

[pothead]

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> pothead <pot...@snakebite.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote reams of trollshit.
>
>>> All flushed where it belongs.
>
>> This thread is a perfect match for #36 in the
>> "snitlist" documented in my links below.
>
> Yep.

+1

>> 36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument
>> with the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done.
>> He will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
>> need to be ALWAYS right at any cost.
>
> No one ever drives me crazy, I just flush trollshit where it belongs.

Good for you!
It's best to just sit back and have a good laugh at snit's expense.

>> He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you
>> into submission with his endless pedanticism. The only
>> way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER engage him,
>> it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger you
>
> No troll ever angers me.

See above.

>> and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004
>
>> It's best not to waste your time with the snit troll.
>
> That’s why I flushed his trollshit where it belongs.

Maybe someday someone will flush snit and then the sewers of Prescott AZ can
deal with him.
lol !

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <C...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:op.01z74...@ryzen.lan...

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.