Re: I Am A "Climate Denier" There Are Too Many "Climate :Liars"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/1/2013 7:05 PM, bleatus coitus whimpered again:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/1/2013 12:47 PM, jay-walker was whimpering for attention from:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:31 AM, bleatus was whimpering for attention from:
.....
>>>>> Of course, you also think the Sun doesn't heat the Earth
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. I stated, with cites, that the variations in the
>>>> Sun's solar output has very little to do with global warming
>>>> due to man-made CO2 (roughly 30 billions tons a year) being
>>>> expelled into the troposphere, bleatus..
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should wake up and smell the oxygen?
>>>
>>> Exactly,
>>
>> Yes, you picked a really bad day to quit sniffing glue..
>
> Steve was right, what an incredible

I see that you're again avoiding the cites that I refuted
your abject nonsense with.. What a surprise that isn't..

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
sun's heat."

--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

[Man of Mind]

On 4/1/2013 9:05 PM, bleatus coitus <coi...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> Mike was throwing another Snit, and whined thusly at:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:45:40 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 3/31/2013 10:57 AM, Mike's SNit deleted and bleated:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:10:56 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike's Snit was whining:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:40:31 -0500, Gordon replied:
......
>>>>>> It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the Sun, not humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that's been debunked for years..
>>>>
>>>> Yes folks, libtards ARE stupid enough to believe the Sun does not
>>>> control our weather.
>>>
>>> Demonizing your opponent won't help you, you fueless cluck..
>>
>> I do not demonize libtards.
>
> You expose their stupidity

When will you be doing that, instead of exposing your own stupidity?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/1/2013 9:08 PM, coitus bleated and whined because:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
>>
>> On 4/1/2013 5:33 PM, spacey12 deleted and bleated because:
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 5:37 am, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 12:55 AM, spacey12 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 31, 9:10 am, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike's Snit writhed in denials:
.......

>>>>>>> It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the Sun, not humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that's been debunked for years..
>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>>>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>>>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>>>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
>>>>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>>>>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>>>>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>>>>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>>>>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>>>>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>>>>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>>>>>> sun's heat."
>>>>>

>>>>> Perfect proof that man is not responsible for any perceived global
>>>>> warming
>>>>
>>>> Only if you take the above cites out of context, spacey..
>>>>
>>>>> The nutty nuts at the EPAhave labeled CO2 a toxic gas
>>>>
>>>> Hrmm, let's put you in a room full of CO2, how long do
>>>> you think you'd last? Not very, is my expected value..
>>>
>>> That's correct.
>>
>> Indeed, so are you backing down from your BS about how the
>> Sun somehow controls our planet's climate in some manner
>> that would explain global warming?
>>
>> Don't try to change the subject after you've been proven wrong,
>> it makes you look like a venal coward, spacey..
>>
>> Here's my cites:

>>
>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>
>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>
>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>> sun's heat."
>

> The idiot has Carbon Dioxide confused with Carbon Monoxide

Nope, that would be yourself again..

[Lee L. Curtis]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/1/2013 9:08 PM, coitus bleated and whined because:
> >
> > Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
> > >
> > > On 4/1/2013 5:33 PM, spacey12 deleted and bleated because:
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 1, 5:37 am, Man of Mind restored:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/1/2013 12:55 AM, spacey12 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mar 31, 9:10 am, Man of Mind restored:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike's Snit writhed in denials:
> .......
> > > > > > > > It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the
> > > > > > > > Sun, not humans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, that's been debunked for years..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming
> > > > > > > -here-we-go-again
> > > > > > >
> >>>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> >>>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
> >>>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
> >>>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

> >>>>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> >>>>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

> >> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> >> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
> >> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
> >> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

> >> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> >> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."
> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_7
> > > 38.jpg
> > >

> > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
> > >
> >> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> >> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> >> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> >> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> >> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> >> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> >> sun's heat."
> >
> > The idiot has Carbon Dioxide confused with Carbon Monoxide
>

> Duh...what? They are different? Nope, that can't be true, you're
> lying! That would be yourself again..

Great comeback! You work all night on that, idiot?

--

[Lee L. Curtis]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/1/2013 9:05 PM, bleatus coitus <coi...@gmail.com> whined with:
> >
> > Mike was throwing another Snit, and whined thusly at:
> >
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:45:40 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
> > > >
> > > > On 3/31/2013 10:57 AM, Mike's SNit deleted and bleated:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:10:56 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike's Snit was whining:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:40:31 -0500, Gordon replied:
> ......
> > > > > > > It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the Sun,
> > > > > > > not humans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, that's been debunked for years..
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes folks, libtards ARE stupid enough to believe the Sun does
> > > > > not control our weather.
> > > >
> > > > Demonizing your opponent won't help you, you fueless cluck..
> > >
> > > I do not demonize libtards.
> >
> > You expose their stupidity
>
> When will you be doing that, instead of exposing your own stupidity?
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-
> again
>
> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

>
> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.j
> pg
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>
> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> sun's heat."

Of course, this hopeless idiot exposes his own stupidity.

--

[Lee L. Curtis]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/1/2013 7:05 PM, bleatus coitus whimpered again:
> >
> > Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
> > >
> > > On 4/1/2013 12:47 PM, jay-walker was whimpering for attention
> > > from:
> > > >
> > > > Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/1/2013 7:31 AM, bleatus was whimpering for attention
> > > > > from:
> .....
> > > > > > Of course, you also think the Sun doesn't heat the Earth
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. I stated, with cites, that the variations in the
> > > > > Sun's solar output has very little to do with global warming
> > > > > due to man-made CO2 (roughly 30 billions tons a year) being
> > > > > expelled into the troposphere, bleatus..
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe you should wake up and smell the oxygen?
> > > >
> > > > Exactly,
> > >
> > > Yes, you picked a really bad day to quit sniffing glue..
> >

> > Steve was right, what an incredible idiot you are!
>
> I see that you're again too smart to fall for cites that I posted.
> Maybe if I repeat them 100 times you will
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-

> again
>
> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

>
> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.j
> pg
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>
> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> sun's heat."

I'm going to have to start calling you "idiot boy". Repeating the same
old debunked sites over and over again won't work.

The facts here prove you are wrong. Read it and weep!

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
--

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 2:17 PM, bleatus cleetus whined and moaned:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>

>> On 4/1/2013 7:05 PM, bleatus cleetus whimpered again:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 12:47 PM, jay-walker was whimpering for attention from:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:31 AM, bleatus was whimpering for attention from:

.......

>>>>>>> Of course, you also think the Sun doesn't heat the Earth
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect. I stated, with cites, that the variations in the
>>>>>> Sun's solar output has very little to do with global warming
>>>>>> due to man-made CO2 (roughly 30 billions tons a year) being
>>>>>> expelled into the troposphere, bleatus..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should wake up and smell the oxygen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you picked a really bad day to quit sniffing glue..
>>>
>>> Steve was right, what an incredible
>>

>> I see that you're again avoiding the cites that I refuted
>> your abject nonsense with.. What a surprise that isn't..
>>
>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>

>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>
>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>> sun's heat."
>

> You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"

I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..

> Repeating the same old debunked sites

Yes, your pseudoscience has been debunked, over and over again..

[Lee L. Curtis]

> >> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> >> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_7
> > > 38.jpg
> > >
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
> > >
> >> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> >> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> >> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> >> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> >> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> >> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> >> sun's heat."
> >

> > You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"?

Yes, but it's your own fault.

>
> I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..

Lamest response I've read all year. You truly are sad.

>
> > Repeating the same old debunked sites
>

> Yes, my pseudoscience has been debunked?

Sorry, idiot boy, the facts here prove you are wrong. I'm sorry you are
too profoundly stupid to understand it - have someone read it to you
and explain it to you.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

--

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 2:42 PM, bleatus cleetus whined and groveled before:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 2:17 PM, bleatus cleetus whined and moaned:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:05 PM, bleatus cleetus whimpered again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 12:47 PM, jay-walker was whimpering for attention from:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:31 AM, bleatus was whimpering for attention from:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Of course, you also think the Sun doesn't heat the Earth
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Incorrect. I stated, with cites, that the variations in the
>>>>>>>> Sun's solar output has very little to do with global warming
>>>>>>>> due to man-made CO2 (roughly 30 billions tons a year) being
>>>>>>>> expelled into the troposphere, bleatus..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you should wake up and smell the oxygen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you picked a really bad day to quit sniffing glue..
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve was right, what an incredible
>>>>
>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the cites that I refuted
>>>> your abject nonsense with.. What a surprise that isn't..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>>>
>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

>>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>>>
>>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>>>> sun's heat."
>>>
>>> You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"
>>

>> I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..
>>

>>> Repeating the same old debunked sites
>>

>> Yes, your pseudoscience has been debunked, over and over again..
>

> Sorry, I'm an idiot boy, the facts here prove I am wrong.

Indeed. You couldn't be trusted with actual scientific methods, eh?

Case in point:

> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

Already debunked, idiot boy..

[Lee L. Curtis]

> >>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
> >>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650
> > > > > -3_738.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
> > > > >
> >>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
> >>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
> >>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
> >>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
> >>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
> >>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
> >>>> sun's heat."
> > > >
> > > > You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"
> > >
> > > I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..
> > >
> > > > Repeating the same old debunked sites
> > >
> > > Yes, your pseudoscience has been debunked, over and over again..
> >
> Sorry, I'm an idiot boy, the facts here prove I am wrong.

So you read my site? Good.

>
> Indeed. You couldn't be trusted with actual scientific methods, eh?
>
> Case in point:
>
> > http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
>

> Already debunked, [Signed] idiot boy..

And I prove you wrong again.

Still think that the moon controls our weather?



--
...llc

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 8:57 PM, Bleep.Curtis wrote:
>
> Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions posted by:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 3:28 PM, Bleep.Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> faulty sham was being intentionally ignorant with:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 8:14 am, Bleep Curtis writhed in denials when:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance expressed by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 9:08 PM, coitus bleated and whined because:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the ambitious ignorance
>>>>>>> expressed by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 5:33 PM, spacey12 deleted and bleated because:

........

>>>>>>>> Don't try to change the subject after you've been proven
>>>>>>>> wrong, it makes you look like a venal coward, spacey..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's my cites:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>>>>>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>>>>>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>>>>>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

>>>>>>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>>>>>>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>>>>>>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>>>>>>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>>>>>>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>>>>>>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>>>>>>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>>>>>>>> sun's heat."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idiot has Carbon Dioxide confused with Carbon Monoxide
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Nope, that would be yourself again..
>>>>>

>>>>> Duh...what?
>>>>
>>>> Try to stay on task this time, zealot..
>>>
>>> So, who is this "Kurt" person, anyway?
>>
>> Kurt who?
>
> That's what I want to know!

Sure you do. Now, can you explain this?

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

You know the "different", hunh?

--
"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 9:27 PM, Bleep Coitis was bleating for attention:
>
> Mike's Snit writhed in climate denials when:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:15:28 -0500, Man of Mind replied:
>>>
>>> On 4/2/2013 6:35 AM, Mike's Snit whimpered thusly:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:19:57 -0500, Man of Mind noted the whining of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/1/2013 9:06 PM, Mike's Snit whimpered thusly:
......
>>>>>> To a clueless blithering idiot
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep telling on yourself, "mike", while you avoid the substance
>>>>> and science references I've posted that refute your abject crapola..
>>>>
>>>> The fact
>>>
>>> What fact have you established regarding this?
>>
>> The fact is way above your level of intelligence.
>> You will never, ever understand that the Sun is really, really hot.
>
> Have you noticed that everyone who gets in a discussion with mindless
> man eventually ends up calling him an idiot?

Yup, that's because you're so intellectually incapable
that you resort to childish epithets and insults as soon
as your right-wing blathering gets exposed for the ambitious
ignorance that it truly is..

Nice knee-jerk you've got there.. *>LOL!<*

--

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 9:21 PM, bleatus coitus <idio...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> Man of Mind was amused by the sparse intellectual capacity exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 3:27 PM, bleatus coitus <idio...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On 4/2/2013 2:55 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled at:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 8:49 am, Man of Mind was still exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/2/2013 7:08 AM, bleatus coitus <idio...@gmail.com> whined:
......
>>>>>> Hey dumbass, What do you think controls our climate?
>>>>>
>>>>> The troposphere. Need me to look that up for you, dumbass?
>>>>
>>>> So, Kurt, tell us. What is the source of energy for the
>>>> troposphere?
>>>
>>> The moon?
>>
>> Nope, you have two more guesses..
>
> Didn't like my hint

It's far more complex than you seem capable of comprehending,
thus your overly-simplistic pseudo-scientific rationalizations..

> So, idiot boy

That's a nice nickname for you, I take it?

--
"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and

Carbon Dioxide too!" --Idiot Boy, Lee L. Coitus

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 9:19 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined:

>
> Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 2:42 PM, bleatus cleetus whined and groveled before:
>>>

>> On 4/2/2013 2:42 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined and groveled before:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>

>>>> On 4/2/2013 2:17 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined and moaned:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/1/2013 7:05 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whimpered again:
.......

>>>>>>> Steve was right, what an incredible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the cites that I refuted
>>>>>> your abject nonsense with.. What a surprise that isn't..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
>>>>>> been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
>>>>>> according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
>>>>>> Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known

>>>>>> that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
>>>>>> other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
>>>>>> less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
>>>>>> steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
>>>>>> time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
>>>>>> sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
>>>>>> higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
>>>>>> sun's heat."
>>>>>
>>>>> You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..
>>>>
>>>>> Repeating the same old debunked sites
>>>>
>>>> Yes, your pseudoscience has been debunked, over and over again..
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm an idiot boy, the facts here prove I am wrong.
>>

>> Indeed. You couldn't be trusted with actual scientific methods, eh?
>>
>> Case in point:
>>
>>> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
>>

>> Already debunked, idiot boy..
>
> And I prove you right again.

Got any other straw men you'd like to wave around futilely, idiot boy?

--
"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and

Carbon Dioxide too!" "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com>

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 9:17 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again at:
>
> Man of Mind was replying to:
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 3:55 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2013 03:27 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> writhed in denials:
>>>>
>>>> gordo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:42:10 +0000 (UTC), "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> wrote:
.....
>>>>> Your source is Friends of Science.Hardly a source for science.
>>>>> Who wrote the garbage that you posted? It is an oil shill site
>>>>> that is 6 years old.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe any of the statements are untrue, then you're
>>>> welcome to post your proof right here:
>>>
>>> My guess is that they either cannot, or they are so blindly
>>> convinced of their own correctness
>>
>> That would be a false dichotomy, a fallacy argument, David..
>
> That makes no sense whatsoever.

Your lack of comprehension is not my problem to solve..

..idiot boy..

--
"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and

Carbon Dioxide too!" --"idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com>

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
>>
>> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:
>>>
>>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:
....
>>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>>
>>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
>>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
>>
>> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer

Yes, it has..

>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>
> Is that so?

Nope, but you, on the other hand..

"the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."

> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for

Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

*>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...

You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
from the subject of global warming and climatology..

--
"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/2/2013 10:46 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whimpered again:
>
> Man of Mind was still exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 4/2/2013 9:19 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>

>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/2013 2:42 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined and groveled before:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 2:17 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined and moaned:

.......

>>>>>>> You're going to have to start calling me "idiot boy"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking I should call you "slapped fraud" instead..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Repeating the same old debunked sites
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, your pseudoscience has been debunked, over and over again..
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I'm an idiot boy, the facts here prove I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. You couldn't be trusted with actual scientific methods, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Case in point:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
>>>>
>>>> Already debunked, idiot boy..
>>>
>>> And I prove you right again.
>>
>> Got any other straw men you'd like to wave around futilely, idiot boy?
>

> You've made a fool out of me enough for one day.

Indeed..

--
"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and

Carbon Dioxide too!" --"idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com>

[Lee L. Curtis]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
> >
> >faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
> > >
> > > On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:
> > > >
> > > > On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently
> > > > because:
> ....
> > > > > Since you didn't post the original problem,
> > > >
> > > > So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
> > > > way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
> > >
> > > It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer
>
> Yes, it has..
>
> > > you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
> > > of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
> >
> > Is that so?

How interesting. So what kind of problem stump you, idiot boy?

>
> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>
> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."

What are you blathering about idiot boy?

>
> > Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>
> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?

...again that makes no sense, idiot boy.

>
> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
> Carbon Dioxide too!

Must have struck a nerve there, or you wouldn't keep repeating that.

It must be embarrassing for you to be exposed like that.

>
> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...

sure is.

Like your term "untis"...now exactly what is an "untis"?

Huh? Go ahead, let's hear it!

>
> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
> from the subject of global warming and climatology..

So exactly what is an "untis"?

--
...llc

[Man of Mind]

On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>
>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 2, 4:06 pm, Man of Mind was laughing at the blather from:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/2/2013 1:39 PM, faulty sham whimpered self-impotently because:

......

>>>>>> Since you didn't post the original problem,
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you can't figure the initial conditions from the
>>>>> way Muffette got the wrong answer, eh?
>>>>
>>>> It has not yet been established that he got the wrong answer
>>
>> Yes, it has..
>>
>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>
>>> Is that so?
>>

>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>
>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>

>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>
>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>

>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>

>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>

>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>

> So what kind of problem stump you

*>LOL!<*

That's a keeper, idiot boy..

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

[Lee L. Curtis]

You didn't answer the question

Like your term "untis"...now exactly what is an "untis"?

Huh? Go ahead, let's hear it!

Why do you keep running away? Hmmmmm

--
...llc

[Man of Mind]

On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>
>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>
>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

......

>>>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that so?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>>>
>>>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>>>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>>>
>>>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>>>
>>>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>>>
>>>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>>>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>>>
>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>
>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>
>> *>LOL!<*
>>
>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>
> You didn't answer the question

Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/4/2013 6:33 AM, Mike's Snit writhed in denials:
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:45:40 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>
>> On 3/31/2013 10:57 AM, Mike's Snit deleted and bleated:

>>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:10:56 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>

>>>> On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike's Snit was whining at:

.....
>>>>> It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the Sun, not humans.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that's been debunked for years..
>>>

>>> Yes folks, libtards ARE this stupid

>>
>> Demonizing your opponent won't help you, you fueless cluck..
>>

>>> They actually believe the Sun does not control our planet's weather.
>>
>> That's been debunked, and deleting my cites doesn't change
>> the facts that I refuted you with, you fueless cluck..
>
> Here ya go, fool:
>
> The climate scamming scientists lied, and here is the proof:

A non-proof, in that the last hundred years of this assemblage
of 'proxy' data wasn't the principal interest..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

"We combined published proxy temperature records from
across the globe to develop regional and global temperature
reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a
resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global
and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last
one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is
the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the
entire Holocene."

Now, as for the Sun driving changes in our climate..

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/its-the-sun

"This is a common myth. It sounds sort of logical if you
don't understand the contexts involved. The fact is that
we receive most of our heat energy from the sun and a
little bit from the heat stored in the earths core. But
does that mean this global warming event is caused by
the sun? No."

> Libtards will believe anything if it makes the human race look bad.

*>LOL!<* So, that's why you have deliberately distorted the
results of scientific study, which you probably didn't try
to understand, in order to desperately support a political
agenda that belongs to your failed "conservative" ideology..

[Salty Stan]

On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, "idiot boy" <clee...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
>
>
> > faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

Kurt why don't you just do this?

1) Post Moffit's original problem
2) Post his answer
3) Post your answer.

That shouldn't be too hard, right? I'm betting that even you are able
to do that.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>
> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>
>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>

>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined with:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

........

>>>>>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
>>>>>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
>>>>>> And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slapped Fraud.. And yourself, idiot boy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
>>>>>> Carbon Dioxide too!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<* That's another keeper!...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>>>

>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>

>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>

>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>>>
>>> You didn't answer the question
>>
>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>

> why don't you just do this?
>
> 1) Post Moffit's original problem

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e94?hl=en&dmode=source

You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
cannon ball has no drag.

(1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?

(2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?

> 2) Post his answer

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cbf?hl=en&dmode=source

%%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.

(1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
feet

(2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
second.

A simple 6th grade math problem!

> 3) Post your answer.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f7?hl=en&dmode=source

*>snurck!<* You're wrong, Dufus.. t=1.414 seconds..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d820c9?hl=en&dmode=source

Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..

32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2

Dividing the 16 out of the right side..

32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..

I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..

> That shouldn't be too hard,

It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..

When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

[Slackjaw]

Oh, are we doing physics problems again? Great, I'll create a new one!

Let's see, in my problem the cannon is sitting on level ground but
pointed upwards at a angle between 45 and 90 degrees (with 90 degrees
being vertical). It fires a ball at a speed of 100 feet per second with
no drag. The ball hits the ground 300 feet away.

The question is, at what angle is the cannon pointed away from the
horizontal?





--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

[Man of Mind]

On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud wrote:
>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>
>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:
........

Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:

On 4/1/2013 10:43 PM, Dr. Jive Macaroni writhed in denials:
>
> Global Warming? Oops! Never Mind!
> ..
> However, it is officially admitted: Global warming
> stopped 15-20 years ago

Nope..

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/

"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU
and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a
record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC.

(That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line
because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the
century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic
cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove
the very chaotic year to year variability that exists
(aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU�s
graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

On 3/31/2013 8:22 AM, Mike Smith wrote:

> It proves the planet's weather is controlled by the Sun, not
> humans.

Nope, that's been debunked for years..

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

But, you'd rather deflect from what I've disproven on
your frightie-rightie behalf, because the only working
familiarity you have with the study of the sciences
ended when you finished junior high school, isn't it?

--

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud wrote:
> >
> > Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
> > >

> >>-

I don't have a strong opinion on GW. Let's do some more physics
problems!

Here we go, can you solve this one Kurt?

[Salty Stan]

On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> was clueless:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>

> >> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> >>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>

> >>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> >>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>

> >>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> >>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered again at:

> ........
> >>>>>>>> you have an unfortunate history of accusing others
> >>>>>>>> of getting wrong answers to problems that stump you.
>
> >>>>>>> Is that so?
>
> >>>>>> Nope, but you, on the other hand..
>
> >>>>>>  "the build up of charge between the plates of a capacitor.
> >>>>>>   And yeah, the charge builds up between the plates, niwit."
>
> >>>>>>> Who is faulty sham? Is that another name for
>
> >>>>>> Slapped Fraud..  And yourself, idiot boy?
>
> >>>>>> "Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
> >>>>>>  Carbon Dioxide too!"
>
> >>>>>> *>LOL!<*  That's another keeper!...
>
> >>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
> >>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
> >>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
> >>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>
> >>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>
> >>>> *>LOL!<*
>
> >>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>
> >>> You didn't answer the question
>
> >> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>
> > why don't you just do this?
>
> > 1) Post Moffit's original problem
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e9...

>
> You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
> a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
> cannon ball has no drag.
>
> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>
> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>
> > 2) Post his answer
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cb...

>
> %%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
> second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.
>
> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
> feet
>
> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
> second.
>
> A simple 6th grade math problem!
>
> > 3) Post your answer.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f...

>
> *>snurck!<*  You're wrong, Dufus..  t=1.414 seconds..
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d8...

>
> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>
> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2

Actually, the correct equation is 32ft = 16 * t^2. But let's continue.

>
> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>
> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..

Well, let's review. If your reproduction is accurate, then, the
original posters answer were not correct. The time it would take is
the square root of two, in seconds, which is what you claimed. So, you
screwed up the equation, but you did get the right answer.

So good for you.

>
> I gave you a chance to check your answer several times over..
>
> > That shouldn't be too hard,
>
> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>
> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
> your anti-global warming pabulum?

I see several posters have already debunked those cites you provided.

> Or, will you keep trying to
> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>

Hmm, good thing that YOU don't do that, eh, Kurt?

[Salty Stan]

On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, untis boy <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud wrote:
>

ss

>
> >> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>
> >> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
> >> your anti-global warming pabulum?  Or, will you keep trying to
> >> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
> >> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>
> > Oh, are we doing physics problems
>

The problem you presented is probably beyond Kurt's ability. I predict
he'll snip it and run away from it.

> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>

See? Told ya.

Perhaps you should try something simpler?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>
>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>

>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

......

> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.

Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..

> Let's do some more physics problems!

Okay..

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

--

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 8:01 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:

..........
>>>>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, flea
>>>>>>>>>> circus, just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives

>>>>>>>>>> you away rather amusingly, especially when you started
>>>>>>>>>> running away from the subject of global warming and
>>>>>>>>>> climatology..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That's a keeper, flea circus..

>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>
>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>
>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>
> The problem you presented is probably

It's in several of my physics textbooks..

> Perhaps you should try something simpler?

Perhaps you couldn't address my counter-arguments as
regards your sock-puppet's claims about global warming?

Let's run by that one more time, and see if you've got
anything more to add to this particular subject, before
you run away again whimpering about 'psychics problems'..

On 4/1/2013 10:43 PM, Dr. Jive Macaroni writhed in denials:
>

Well? You going to answer any of that?

--
"Kurt, why do you evading these questions?"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 7:53 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sputtered:
>
> On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

>>>
>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>

>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:
........

>>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't answer the question
>>>>
>>>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>>>
>>> why don't you just do this?
>>>
>>> 1) Post Moffit's original problem
>>

>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e94?hl=en&dmode=source

>>
>> You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
>> a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
>> cannon ball has no drag.
>>
>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>>
>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>>
>>> 2) Post his answer
>>

>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cbf?hl=en&dmode=source

>>
>> %%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
>> second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.
>>
>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
>> feet
>>
>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
>> second.
>>
>> A simple 6th grade math problem!
>>
>>> 3) Post your answer.
>>

>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f7?hl=en&dmode=source

>>
>> *>snurck!<* You're wrong, Dufus.. t=1.414 seconds..
>>

>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d820c9?hl=en&dmode=source

>>
>> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>>
>> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>
> Actually, the correct equation

You're again quibbling my notation, to no avail, faulty sham..

>> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>>
>> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>
> Well, let's review. If your reproduction is accurate

Think you can prove that my transcription is inaccurate?

Then why suggest otherwise, you dishonest piece of refuse?

> the original posters answer were not correct

My point entirely, despite how you 'blotched' your own reply..

F'rinstance..

> The time it would take is the square root of two, in seconds,
> which is what you claimed. So, you screwed up the equation

Nope, that would again be yourself quibbling my notation..

>>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>>
>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>
>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>> your anti-global warming pabulum?
>
> I see several posters have already debunked those cites

*>LOL!<* Nope, that's wishful thinking on your behalf..

>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted

>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to

>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>
> Hmm, good thing that YOU don't do that

Yup, I would never compromise like you do with several of
your sock-puppets sniveling in the same wretched manner
as you do..

--
"when you've been beated in an argument, or had some of your
errors corrected in public, the best thing to do to admit your
mistake and move on."

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

-

> > > Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>
> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..

Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

>
> > Let's do some more physics problems!
>
> Okay..
>
> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>
> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>
> Put your answers right here---> _______________

I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics. Do you? Perhaps you can
solve my problem.

Can you?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:

>>
>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

.......

>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>
>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>
> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

*>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..

>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>
>> Okay..
>>
>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>
> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics

Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..

One of us got his degree in physics, and you've admitted
that it wasn't you, nor any of your sock-puppets..

--

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 3:15 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled with:
>
> On Apr 7, 4:00 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:

>>>
>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

.........

>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>
>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>
>> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

So, in other words, you didn't read any om my cites
after requesting them so you could verify the answers..

>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>
>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics
>

> I don't have a degree in physics either

Quite so.. Maybe you shouldn't throw stones in that
glass house of yours?

--

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

[Slackjaw]

Man of Mind wrote:

-

> > > > I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
> > >
> > > Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
> > > cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
> >
> > Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.
>
> *>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..

Translation: I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.

>
> > > > Let's do some more physics problems!

> -

> >
> > I don't have a degree in physics
>
> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..

Who says I do? I can solve the problem, even though I don't have a
degree in physics - can you?

>
> One of us got his degree in physics,

If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics, then your"degree"
isn't very valid, now is it?

> and you've admitted
> that it wasn't you, nor any of your sock-puppets..



--

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:

>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

.........

>>>>>>>>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>
>>> Actually, I have nothing to do with anyone called Muffette.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Translation: Run Away!..
>
> Translation: I have nothing

That's correct, for once..

>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>

>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>
>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>
> Who says I do?

Me, slapped fraud..

> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics

Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..

Recall:

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

--

[Cragar]

On 4/6/2013 4:03 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> the only working
> familiarity you have with the study of the sciences
> ended when you finished junior high school, isn't it?

Isn't that where the Goreon's research tailed off as well?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 8:00 PM, cranker <du...@invalid.nut> deleted and bleated:
>
> On 4/6/2013 4:03 PM, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 4/7/2013 8:01 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>

>>> On Apr 6, 7:03 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
....

>>> Perhaps you should try something simpler?
>>
>> Perhaps you couldn't address my counter-arguments as
>> regards your sock-puppet's claims about global warming?
>>
>> Let's run by that one more time, and see if you've got
>> anything more to add to this particular subject, before
>> you run away again whimpering about 'psychics problems'..
>>

>> your frightie-rightie behalf, because the only working

>> familiarity you have with the study of the sciences
>> ended when you finished junior high school, isn't it?
>>

>> Well? You going to answer any of that?
>

> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s

> research tailed off as well?

Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..

--

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

[Slackjaw]

You reacted exactly as I predicted.


LOL - So much for your "physics degree".

[Man of Mind]

On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>

>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
.......

>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Okay..

>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>>

>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>
>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>
>>> Who says I do?
>>
>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>
>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>
>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>

>> Recall:
>>
>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>
>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>

> You reacted

Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

*>chuckling<*

What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?

--

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards.

That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics but doesn't even
understand faraday's law. See below:



Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...



https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...



...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.


"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en



...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html


...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.


Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en



<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..


How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.

[Steve]

Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions from the
physics textbook he probably stole from the school library while he
was supposed to be sweeping up?

[Slackjaw]

> > You reacted exactly as I expected.

>
> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..

When you have to resort to blatant lying, then I know I've won.

>
> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>
> *>chuckling<*
>
> What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?

IT, my knowledge of physics is only at the freshman college level.
That's OK - I know enough to create and solve simple physics problems
that stump you.

All I wanted to do was to demonstrate how bogus your "physics degree"
really was.

[Slackjaw]

He does not accept defeat gracefully.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>
>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay..

I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
faux pas, haven't you "steve"?

>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>
>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>
>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>
>>>> Recall:
>>>>
>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>
>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> You reacted
>>

>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own

>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> *>chuckling<*
>

> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics

That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..

> but doesn't even understand faraday's law.

No, that would be yourself that doesn't understand
Faraday's Law of Induction..

Transcript of Man of Mind schooling Steve Canyon, a synopsis:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what a conductor is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduction#In_metals

"A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an
outer shell of electrons which freely dissociate from
their parent atoms and travel through the lattice.
This is also known as a positive ionic lattice. This
'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to
conduct electric current.

But, you don't understand the difference between electrostatic
and magnetic fields, to begin with, do you "steve"?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependant on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, here, from your own cite, I present Faraday's Law of Induction

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faraday�s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

That may be just a little bit over your head, I suppose. You'd
have to study Maxwell's Laws to get past your junior high
'google scholar' comprehension of this subject. I suspect
that you're just too stubbornly lazy to try past that..

Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
> he can't get drunk. He can't, you know...

Especially if I don't drink at all..

Say, why did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

--
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have significant
magnetic fields, Lochner."
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT

"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

[Steve]

Graceful is not a word I would ever associate with Curtie. I see him
as more of a stumbler, physically as well as mentally.

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>
>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
>.........
>>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Okay..
>
>I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:

You're not qualified to ask technical questions, Licknutz..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>>>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>>>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>>>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>>>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have a degree in physics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, maybe you shouldn't throw out challenges you can't
>>>>>> meet with the correct answers, Slapped Fraud..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says I do?
>>>>
>>>> Me, slapped fraud..
>>>>
>>>>> If you can't solve a simple problem in mechanics
>>>>
>>>> Then maybe you shouldn't be challenging me when you can't..
>>>>
>>>> Recall:
>>>>
>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>>
>>>> "Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> You reacted
>>

>> Nope, I just pointed out how you failed to solve your own
>> 'psychics problem', and then bragged & sagged afterwards..
>>

>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>

> When you have to resort to blatant lying

Another false accusation from a sociopathic liar.. *>LOL!<*

Here's where you failed..

>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> *>chuckling<*
>>
>> What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?
>
> IT, my knowledge of physics is only at the freshman college level.

It shows..

> That's OK - I know enough to create and solve simple physics problems

And that's about it, yeah, I noticed..

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

> All I wanted to do was to demonstrate how bogus

You really are, with multiple aliases and 'google scholarship',
while you resort to lies, personal attacks and juvenile insinuations
after I spanked you silly on the subject of global warming..

Yeah, that's been noted, too..

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:

>
> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

..
>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]

>
> He does not accept defeat gracefully.

*>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..

Let's go back over that again..

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/

"It�s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
complicated than one might think to detect and measure
changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the
sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth�s
surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
by taking readings from space. "

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
sun's heat."

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or

other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

......

>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>
>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>
>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>
>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>
>> Okay..
>>

>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>

> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school

Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..

And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted
your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
man-made global climate changes..

How quaintly stupid of you both..

--

[Salty Stan]

On Apr 7, 9:47 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/2013 7:53 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> sputtered:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>

> >> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> was clueless:

>
> >>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>

> >>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> >>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>

> >>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>
> >>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>

> >>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <clee...@gmail.com> whined:

> ........
> >>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
> >>>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
> >>>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
> >>>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>
> >>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>
> >>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>
> >>>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>
> >>>>> You didn't answer the question
>
> >>>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>
> >>> why don't you just do this?
>
> >>> 1) Post Moffit's original problem
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e9...

>
> >> You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
> >> a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
> >> cannon ball has no drag.
>
> >> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>
> >> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>
> >>> 2) Post his answer
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cb...

>
> >> %%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
> >> second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.
>
> >> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
> >> feet
>
> >> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
> >> second.
>
> >> A simple 6th grade math problem!
>
> >>> 3) Post your answer.
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f...

>
> >> *>snurck!<*  You're wrong, Dufus..  t=1.414 seconds..
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d8...

>
> >> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>
> >> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>
> > Actually, the correct equation
>
> You're again quibbling my notation, to no avail, faulty sham..
>
> >> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>
> >> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>
> > Well, let's review. If your reproduction is accurate
>
> Think you can prove that my transcription is inaccurate?
>
> Then why suggest otherwise, you dishonest piece of refuse?

Actually I didn't. Please read again.

>
> > the original posters answer were not correct
>
> My point entirely, despite how you 'blotched' your own reply..
>
> F'rinstance..
>
> > The time it would take is the square root of two, in seconds,
> > which is what you claimed. So, you screwed up the equation
>
> Nope, that would again be yourself quibbling my notation..

Eh, your notation is not 100% correct, but, not important.

>
> >>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>
> >> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>
> >> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
> >> your anti-global warming pabulum?
>
> > I see several posters have already debunked those cites
>
> *>LOL!<*  Nope, that's wishful thinking on your behalf..
>
> >> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
> >> your anti-global warming pabulum?  Or, will you keep trying to
> >> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
> >> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>
> > Hmm, good thing that YOU don't do that
>
> Yup, I would never compromise like you do with several of
> your sock-puppets sniveling in the same wretched manner
> as you do..

Like "SlackFest" or "Baron von Mind" or "Kurt Lochner"?

Sure, no "personal attacks" by them, ever.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was seeking sympathy from:
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

Still can't solve it, eh?

What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
of 1.0 centimeter from each other?

Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?

Put your answers right here---> _______________

>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>
> Graceful is not a word I would ever associate

As you 'stumble' around trying to pretend some sort
of an imagined superiority after I proved you wrong..

Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?

--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

[Salty Stan]

On Apr 8, 7:56 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind  laughed at:
>

> >> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> sniveled:

>
> >>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>

> >>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> deleted:

>
> >>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>

> >>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> deleted:

>
> >>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>

> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:

>
> >>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:
> .........
> >>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>
> >>>>>>>> Okay..
>

Kurt, why don't you just go ahead and concede that your "physics
degree" is fictional? Everyone would respect you for your honesty.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was still whimpering because:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:00:21 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2013 9:51 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 4:50 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2013 3:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slapping administered to:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text/context:

...........

>>>>>>>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Okay..
>>
>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:
>>

>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?
>

> You're not qualified to ask technical questions

*>LOL!<* I can think of several companies that would
argue that point with you, but it's easier just to pay
me to solve them..

Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:06:21 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote:
>>
>>
>> You're not qualified to ask technical questions
>

>*>LOL!<* I can think..

Perhaps, but not logically, nor beyond the reasoning power of a child.
See below:


<LOL> So when is Lochner going to call NASA and tell them that
they're wrong?


Note that trailer trash Lochner returns from his
evening shift janitor job and because he cannot refute
it, he snips the quote from NASA which proves him
wrong.. see below:

Electromagnetic force is the force that produces electricity..
Thus, electromagnetic force is the force
that exists between the plates of a charged capacitor.
Of course it's also the force that charges those plates...

Electromagnetic force is one of the four forces of nature
which produces electricity... ...as stated (below) by
real physicists at NASA

**************************************************************
"there are four known forces:
[...]
2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged
particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced
by this force and it also has infinite range. "

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html

**************************************************************


NASA says that electromagnetic force is what produces electricity.
Lochner says it isn't. <LOL> So who're you gonna believe?

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What's

Exactly.. <LOL>

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>..
>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
>>>present.
>>

>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>
>*>LOL!<* And all this whining

Perhaps Curt should stop whining and face his legacy.



I remember when Kurt did a trace on my post and the icon showed up
where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Kurt
thought I lived there..

"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"
--Little Kurtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from
and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that
spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

I told Kurt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I
wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a
swim in the pool.

Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...

Let it go Kurt. You'll feel better...

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" wrote:
>>
>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions

>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school where he
>> was sweeping up.
>
>Actually..

Yeah, I know, you weren't only sweeping up, but you'd been given
authority over the wastebaskets too.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 8:02 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On Apr 7, 4:00 pm, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>> Man of Mind as exploiting the evasions and sociopathy exhibited by:

>> >
>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>

>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:
.......

>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>
>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>

>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>
>>> Okay..
>>>

>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>

>> I don't know, I don't have a degree in physics. Do you? Perhaps you can
>> solve my problem.
>>
>> Can you?
>
> As I had said,

Nope, you merely insinuated that..

> I have solved it - the answer is 53.1301 degrees

Pretty much what I first guessed, btw..

When will you get around to addressing the cites that

I refuted your anti-global warming 'talking points' with?

Or, is that pretty much settled?

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 7:58 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> muttered:
>
> On Apr 7, 9:47 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/7/2013 7:53 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sputtered:

>>>
>>> On Apr 5, 10:31 am, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>

>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:40 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 8:08 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2013 7:02 AM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> sniveled again:

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On 4/2/2013 10:16 PM, flea circus <cle...@gmail.com> whined:
..........

>>>>>>>>>> You can't do even the simplest physics problems, idiot boy,
>>>>>>>>>> just like the rest of your sock-puppets. It gives you away
>>>>>>>>>> rather amusingly, especially when you started running away
>>>>>>>>>> from the subject of global warming and climatology..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what kind of problem stump you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a keeper, idiot boy..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't answer the question
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so proud of your deliberate ignorance?
>>>>>
>>>>> why don't you just do this?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Post Moffit's original problem
>>>>

>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/030b6cd635998e94?hl=en&dmode=source

>>>>
>>>> You place a cannon on a hill top with an elevation of 32 feet. It fires
>>>> a cannon ball perfectly horizontal at 1,000 feet per second and the
>>>> cannon ball has no drag.
>>>>
>>>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground?
>>>>
>>>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground?
>>>>
>>>>> 2) Post his answer
>>>>

>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/5d3a905216989cbf?hl=en&dmode=source

>>>>
>>>> %%%% No need for an equation since objects fall at 32 feet per second/per
>>>> second and the ball was traveling at 1,000 feet per second.
>>>>
>>>> (1) How far will the cannon ball go before it hits the ground? ----> 1,000
>>>> feet
>>>>
>>>> (2) How long will it take for the cannon ball to hit the ground? ----> 1
>>>> second.
>>>>
>>>> A simple 6th grade math problem!
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Post your answer.
>>>>

>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/483d969d962c46f7?hl=en&dmode=source

>>>>
>>>> *>snurck!<* You're wrong, Dufus.. t=1.414 seconds..
>>>>

>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b204b512c6d820c9?hl=en&dmode=source

>>>>
>>>> Since y and v(0)*t both equal zero, here's the next step..
>>>>
>>>> 32f = 16f/s^2 * t^2
>>>
>>> Actually, the correct equation
>>
>> You're again quibbling my notation, to no avail, faulty sham..
>>
>>>> Dividing the 16 out of the right side..
>>>>
>>>> 32'/16' = 2 = t^2 thus t = square root of 2 = 1.414 seconds..
>>>
>>> Well, let's review. If your reproduction is accurate
>>
>> Think you can prove that my transcription is inaccurate?
>>
>> Then why suggest otherwise, you dishonest piece of refuse?
>
> Actually I didn't.

Aren't you the dishonorable pile of refuse that's suggesting
that I somehow got the equation wrong? Nice backpedal, boy..

>>> the original posters answer were not correct
>>
>> My point entirely, despite how you 'blotched' your own reply..
>>
>> F'rinstance..
>>
>>> The time it would take is the square root of two, in seconds,
>>> which is what you claimed. So, you screwed up the equation
>>
>> Nope, that would again be yourself quibbling my notation..
>
> Eh, your notation is not 100% correct, but, not important.

Indeed, but yours have had several glaring errors, right?

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

>>>>> That shouldn't be too hard,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that it was too difficult for you to accomplish, faulty sham..
>>>>
>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum?
>>>
>>> I see several posters have already debunked those cites
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Nope, that's wishful thinking on your behalf..
>>
>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>
>>> Hmm, good thing that YOU don't do that
>>
>> Yup, I would never compromise like you do with several of
>> your sock-puppets sniveling in the same wretched manner
>> as you do..
>
> Like "SlackFest"

Like the way you're avoiding how I refuted your various
sock-puppets' pseudo-science excuses for man-made climate
changes?

You can run away, but it doesn't change the scientific facts..

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continued whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was seeking sympathy from:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>> Still can't solve it, eh?
> >
>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>
>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>
>> Put your answers right here---> _______________

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>
>>> Graceful is not a word I would ever associate
>>
>> As you 'stumble' around trying to pretend some sort
>> of an imagined superiority after I proved you wrong..
>>
>> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?
>

> Exactly.. <LOL>

SO that would be "none", and you've been running away from this

simple problem regarding the comparison of electrostatic and
magnetic fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
faux pas, haven't you "steve"?

Maybe you should look up the term "potential difference"?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

....

>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]

>>>
>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>

>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>

> Perhaps Curt

Who?

Maybe you need more than just a "google search" to help you?

That may be just a little bit over your head, I suppose. You'd
have to study Maxwell's Laws to get past your junior high
'google scholar' comprehension of this subject. I suspect
that you're just too stubbornly lazy to try past that..

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continued sniveling impotently at:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:06:21 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" was still whimpering because:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:56:52 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

....

>>>> I see that neither of you two amateurs can solve this:
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>>
>>>> In fact, you've been running away from this simple problem
>>>> regarding the comparison of electrostatic and magnetic
>>>> fields since you first committed your "magnetic capacitors"
>>>> faux pas, haven't you "steve"?
>>>

>>> You're not qualified to ask technical questions
>>

>> *>LOL!<* I can think of several companies that would
>> argue that point with you, but it's easier just to pay
>> me to solve them..
>

> Perhaps, but

Speaking "the reasoning power of a child", how's that "google"
scholarship of yours holding up against actual knowledge?

Not very good, it seems..

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" cowardly deleted and bleated:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind restored the original text.context deleted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 1:56 PM, slapped_fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2013 8:21 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was clueless:

........

>>>>>>>> When will you get around to addressing the cites that I refuted
>>>>>>>> your anti-global warming pabulum? Or, will you keep trying to
>>>>>>>> deflect attention away from that subject with your pathetic
>>>>>>>> personal attacks and prepubescent insinuations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, are we doing physics problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you're running away again from these cites I presented:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion on GW.
>>>>
>>>> Sure you don't.. What about Muffette's faux pas above that
>>>> cost him $5,000.00? You seem to want skip that part too..
>>>>
>>>>> Let's do some more physics problems!
>>>>
>>>> Okay..
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>>

>>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
>>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school
>>

>> Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
>> to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
>> fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
>> to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
>> if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
>> blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..
>>
>> And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted
>> your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
>> man-made global climate changes..
>>
>> How quaintly stupid of you both..
>

> Yeah, I know

When will you act to remediate your ambitious ignorance?

[Cragar]

On 4/7/2013 6:56 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s
>> research tailed off as well?
>
> Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..

Wait, wait...you mean he has "formal training" as a climatic scientist
in his academic resume?

Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965, initially planning to major in
English and write novels, but later deciding to major in
government.[22][23] On his second day on campus, he began campaigning
for the freshman student government council, and was elected its
president.[23]
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and
mathematical theories,[23] he did not do well in science classes in
college, and avoided taking math.[22] His grades during his first two
years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore
year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting
pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.

Gore's involvement in environmental issues has been criticized. For
example, he has been labeled a "carbon billionaire" and accused of
profiting from his advocacy;[214] a charge which he has denied,[215] by
saying, among other things, that he has not been "working on this issue
for 30 years... because of greed".[214] A conservative Washington D.C.
think tank, and a Republican member of Congress, among others, have
claimed that Gore has a conflict-of-interest for advocating for taxpayer
subsidies of green-energy technologies in which he has a personal
investment.[215][216] Additionally, he has been criticized for his
above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning
multiple, very large homes,[217] one of which was reported in 2007 as
using high amounts of electricity.[218][219] Gore's spokesperson
responded by stating that the Gores use renewable energy which is more
expensive than regular energy...


laugh, laugh, laugh....

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:44 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> When will you act to remediate your ambitious ignorance?

When will you lose your malignantly narcissistic persona?

[Steve]

>Speaking..

..but your probably slurring your words...


Transcript of Lochner admitting to being an alcoholic and a
dead-beat dad which leads to him being desperate to
manufacture unsupported nonsense (ie, <chuckle>)"something,
anything to attack me personally."

His problem here, of course, is that I have proof
whereas he has nothing.


Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600

Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
dollar?"


Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
petty remarks? "

Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
you weren't in the picture? "

Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
hero..
Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
child custody filings, no further hearings on the
settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
cartoon hero..
You really are looking for something, anything to
attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
you've made today.."

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

[Steve]

Irony anyone?

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:36:48 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>....
>>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
>>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]
>>>>
>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>>
>> Perhaps Curt
>
>Who?

You, Lochner..




Names that Lick-knob Lockner has claimed to be me in the course of one week

"John Patrick"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a1cf0a750ed0a27b

"Nichole"
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/7afc288cd5ce842a

"peter"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f0e68f5eeccd3d2d

"Sam"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b6e643d40be55c10

"It's Sollog's GF and/or little brother"
and supporters"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/66c5a3dea83b4cda



I remember when Curt did a trace on my post and the icon showed up where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Curt thought I lived there..

"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"

--Little Curtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from

and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

I told Curt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a swim in the pool.

Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...

Let it go Lickner. You'll feel better...


"What about the Land of Lakes athletic facility, or the Seven
Springs Golf and Country Club? You left out those, as well
as the Palm Harbor facilities.."
--Licknuts Lochner trying to guess where I post from
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush limbaugh/msg/55997666e17bbb8e?hl=en

[Steve]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:33:40 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" wrote

>>
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:
>>>

>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote

>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Still can't solve it, eh?
>> >
>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>
>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>
>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>
>*>cricket.wav<*

<CHUCKLE> Lochner imagines that he's qualified to ask those questions
when he doesn't even understand Faraday's law.

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:41 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, when did you abandon Whitley Streiber's theories on gray aliens
among us, Kurt?

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:36 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Perhaps Curt
>
> Who?

You mean he should have spelled it "Kurt"?

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:33 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, who's this jaunty fellow?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/pics.fandalism.com/550x550-B480FF05-37A6-4819-A65C3C92CAB87F22.jpg

[Salty Stan]

You forgot to mention he invented the internet.

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:26 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> You can run away, but it doesn't change the scientific facts..

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html

The trend obtained from both databases is positive. This means that the
Total Solar Irradiance is actually increasing since 1610 A.D. The total
increase has been 3.2932 W/m^2.

From this graph, we infer that changes of terrestrial tropospheric
temperature follow the same trend as the intensity of total solar
irradiance, i.e. that they have increased since 1699 AD.

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 7:09 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> When will you get around to addressing the cites that
> I refuted your anti-global warming 'talking points' with?
>
> Or, is that pretty much settled?

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 6:06 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, which university did your alleged PhD in physics come from?

*>crickets<*

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 6:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?

You mean these?

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100826ptan20100214718.php

Abstract: A magnetic capacitor comprises a dielectric layer having a
first surface and a second surface opposed to the first surface, a first
electrode disposed on the first surface of the dielectric layer and a
second electrode disposed on the second surface of the dielectric layer.
The first electrode has a plurality of first magnetic dipoles with a
same first direction, and the first direction of the first magnetic
dipoles is perpendicular to the dielectric layer. ...

Agent: North America Intellectual Property Corporation - Merrifield, VA, US
Inventor: Chia-Fu Yeh
USPTO Applicaton #: #20100214718 - Class: 361305 (USPTO) - 08/26/10 -
Class 361

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 5:57 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I refuted
> your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
> man-made global climate changes..

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 5:45 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>

> Let's go back over that again..

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 5:39 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I spanked you silly on the subject of global warming..

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 4:56 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> That's from the guy who claims a degree in physics
>
> That's true, earned one, went back for a masters too..

At which university?

*>crickets<*

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 4:00 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> What'd you say your degree was in, flapjaws?

Where did you say you obtained your PhD, Kurt?

*>crickets<*

[Cragar]

On 4/7/2013 1:25 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> I don't have a degree in physics either
>
> Quite so.. Maybe you shouldn't throw stones in that
> glass house of yours?

Maybe you should list which university your PhD was earned from?

*>crickets<*

[Cragar]

On 4/7/2013 1:16 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> One of us got his degree in physics, and you've admitted
> that it wasn't you, nor any of your sock-puppets..
>
> --

Which university did you get that alleged PhD/degree from, Kurt?

*>crickets<*

[Cragar]

On 4/7/2013 6:35 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Well? You going to answer any of that?

[Steve]

<LOL> Curt seems to be projecting his own arrest record these
days... and did he, perhaps, have a cell mate he lovingly referred to
as "John-boy?"

[Salty Stan]

I saw Kurt post recently that you had obtained a copy of his "court
records" (!)

I wonder if you could share with us some of the details of that
incident.

[Cragar]

He has an "arrest record"?

For what?

[Cragar]

Well sometimes it does look like the work of someone "in the lower fifth
of the class"...

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 9:37 AM, Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:36:48 -0500, Man of Mind
> <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:
>> ....
>>>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
>>>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>>>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>>>
>>> Perhaps Curt
>>
>> Who?
>
> You, Lochner..
>

You mean this jaunty fellow:


http://s3.amazonaws.com/pics.fandalism.com/550x550-B480FF05-37A6-4819-A65C3C92CAB87F22.jpg

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 11:42 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, canker <du...@invalid.nut> was last seen sniveling impotently:
....

>>>> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s
>>>> research tailed off as well?
>>>
>>> Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..
>>
>> Wait, wait...you mean

*>LOL!<* Desperate for attention today, sockpuppet?

> You forgot to mention he invented the internet.

He certainly made your pathetic job possible, code-monkey..

--
"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear,
don't you"

"Sure do - AND I know the different between Carbon Monoxide and
Carbon Dioxide too!"

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 10:35 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 11:42 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>
>> On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, canker <du...@invalid.nut> was last seen sniveling
>> impotently:
> ....
>>>>> Isn't that where [Former Vice-President Al Gore]'s
>>>>> research tailed off as well?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, but keep telling on yourself, cranker..
>>>
>>> Wait, wait...you mean
>
> *>LOL!<* Desperate for attention today, sockpuppet?

Still taking the bait, croaker?

>> You forgot to mention he invented the internet.
>
> He certainly made your pathetic job possible, code-monkey..

Which university did your alleged PhD come from, coraker?

*>crickets<*

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:36:48 -0500, Man of Mind noted the usual shallowness from:

>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" continue whimpering for attention:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:45:18 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:51 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com complained with:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:33 AM, "steve" began whimpering anew when:

......

>>>>>> How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
>>>>>> he can't get drunk. He can't, [..]
>>>>>
>>>>> He does not accept defeat gracefully.
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* And all this whining and ad hominem because I've
>>>> trashed your pseudo-science regarding global warming..
>>>
>>> Perhaps Curt
>>
>> Who?
>
> You

I see that you're again avoiding the substance of my postings..

Let's go back over that again..

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid/

"It�s very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical
purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature
is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause
would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more
complicated than one might think to detect and measure
changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth.
Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of
interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud
passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise
beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed.
The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the
sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth�s
surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is
by taking readings from space. "

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11650/dn11650-3_738.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

"According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third
less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been
steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this
time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon
sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason:
higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the
sun's heat."

http://www.desmogblog.com/solar-forcing-and-global-warming-here-we-go-again

"[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
been decreasing slightly over the past few years and,
according to Sigurdsson, is now moving towards a minimum.
Even disregarding that, climate scientists have long known
that variations in solar activity � whether on Earth or
other planets � have nothing to do with global warming."

Try not to choke again, John-boy..

--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 11:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> "[..}perhaps most important, solar irradiance has actually
> been decreasing

...

> Try not to choke again, John-boy..

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" was bloviating like a retard:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:44:34 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" cowardly deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:57:58 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 6:50 AM, "steve" whimpered profusely before:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 08:13:57 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2013 11:00 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
.....
>>>>> Does everyone understand that Lochner simply posts questions
>>>>> from the physics textbook he probably stole from the school
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I put that question together for you to begin
>>>> to understand the differences between electric and magnetic
>>>> fields. But, you're too proud of your deliberate ignorance
>>>> to even begin to work this type of problem because you know,
>>>> if only subconsciously, that it challenges everything you've
>>>> blathered, blustered and fumed at me about..
>>>>
>>>> And all this so you and flapsjaws can avoid how I refuted

>>>> your usual right-wing pseudo-science excuses for ignoring
>>>> man-made global climate changes..
>>>>

>>>> How quaintly stupid of you both..
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know
>>
>> When will you act to remediate your ambitious ignorance?
>
> Irony

It's not just for breakfast, crayon..

--
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have significant
magnetic fields, Lochner."
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT

"Coulomb's Law " Like charges repel, unlike charges attract.
that's what makes curent flow, dummy...."
kicking hippies <steven...@yahoo.com>

"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 11:41 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Irony
>
> It's not just for breakfast, crayon..

True that...

[Man of Mind]

On 4/8/2013 11:37 AM, "steve" whimpered impotently when:
>
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:33:40 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at the evasions of:
>>
>> On 4/8/2013 8:53 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:38 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at the evasions from:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2013 7:29 AM, "steve" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:51:07 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>
>>>> Still can't solve it, eh?
>>>>
>>>> What's the repulsive force between two objects, each charged
>>>> with 100 Coulombs of electrostatic potential, at a distance
>>>> of 1.0 centimeter from each other?
>>>>
>>>> Now, how much magnetic force, in Gauss, would it take for a
>>>> pair of magnets to repel each other with the same amount of
>>>> force at the same distance (1.0 centimeter)?
>>>>
>>>> Put your answers right here---> _______________
>>
>> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> <CHUCKLE>

Still can't solve it, eh?

Transcript of Man of Mind schooling Steve Canyon, a synopsis:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what a conductor is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduction#In_metals

"A metal consists of a lattice of atoms, each with an
outer shell of electrons which freely dissociate from
their parent atoms and travel through the lattice.
This is also known as a positive ionic lattice. This
'sea' of dissociable electrons allows the metal to
conduct electric current.

But, you don't understand the difference between electrostatic
and magnetic fields, to begin with, do you "steve"?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependant on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, here, from your own cite, I present Faraday's Law of Induction

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faraday�s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

Maybe you should look up the term "potential difference"?

Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

[Cragar]

On 4/8/2013 11:50 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> Much like your opinions on politics and economics, you've
> demonstrated an abject lack of understanding past your
> usual prepubescent regurgitations of right-wing pabulum..

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html

The trend obtained from both databases is positive. This means that the
Total Solar Irradiance is actually increasing since 1610 A.D. The total
increase has been 3.2932 W/m^2.

From this graph, we infer that changes of terrestrial tropospheric
temperature follow the same trend as the intensity of total solar
irradiance, i.e. that they have increased since 1699 AD.

> Say, when did they let you bond out of jail, John-boy?

Say, what were you supposedly arrested for, Kurt?

*crickets.wav<*