More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[flacaltenn]

It's not that they were infallible, it's how they were selected. I think if you read the article, it has meaningful results: experts with 15+ peer reviewed articles published are the same scientists that have a good idea of how the environment is affected and they all agree to some basic ranges. But I don't want you to get upset so I won't recommend you read the associated links. Our sources differ but you won't let my sources qualify. Why? 1 single reason: they don't agree with your predetermined answer and hence does not qualify as a source. If you'd like, name 1 favorite of yours. I just gave your 2 but you didn't like them.

No see.. You're missing the point. THey DONT all agree.. There this key critical factor called "Climate Sensitivity".. THAT'S the number that predicts the temperature in 2065. It's silly because it's a "Global Average" and therefore doesn't relate to a dynamic climate system that varies seasonally, geographically, and with surface type, but how these clowns want to present it. So it varies in the literature over a RANGE of 1.2 to 5.5 or so.. So there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory.. Many other examples where you will go completely OFF THE RAILS --- trying to BELIEVE that they all agree.

 

[orogenicman]

It's not that they were infallible, it's how they were selected. I think if you read the article, it has meaningful results: experts with 15+ peer reviewed articles published are the same scientists that have a good idea of how the environment is affected and they all agree to some basic ranges. But I don't want you to get upset so I won't recommend you read the associated links. Our sources differ but you won't let my sources qualify. Why? 1 single reason: they don't agree with your predetermined answer and hence does not qualify as a source. If you'd like, name 1 favorite of yours. I just gave your 2 but you didn't like them.

No see.. You're missing the point. THey DONT all agree.. There this key critical factor called "Climate Sensitivity".. THAT'S the number that predicts the temperature in 2065. It's silly because it's a "Global Average" and therefore doesn't relate to a dynamic climate system that varies seasonally, geographically, and with surface type, but how these clowns want to present it. So it varies in the literature over a RANGE of 1.2 to 5.5 or so.. So there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory.. Many other examples where you will go completely OFF THE RAILS --- trying to BELIEVE that they all agree.

Why would it? Long term climate change isn't about seasonal or geographic variability. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

"there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory..."

Oh, you mean that scientists have disagreements? Oh my. What is the world coming to?

 

[Abraham3]

FCT,

You state that the opinions of the experts were "all over the map", that they ranged from "toasty warm to cataclysmic. Not so. If that had been the case, the average of their opinions would have been 0C predicted temperature change. These weren't yes/no questions but questions which asked for numerical responses. Thus it was entirely appropriate to average them and to conclude that the average value of their responses has worth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Coke could set a precedent by stopping the production and distribution of beverages laced with CO2 and other poisons like high fructose corn syrup. That would be a start.

You're welcome to join the dozens of others that have offered market alternatives..
A little bit of an overstatement to call HFCSyrup "a poison" dontchathink??

Puts you at odds with quite of bit of "consensus".. Tee Hee.... And no --- I don't really want to debate it. My neighbor is a huge soda Nazi...

I am one of the denizens who refuse to put that filth in their bodies. And no it is not an overstatement to call high fructose corn syrup a poison, because that is what it is.

Still looking for the makeup of HFCS?

 

[SSDD]

I am one of the denizens who refuse to put that filth in their bodies. And no it is not an overstatement to call high fructose corn syrup a poison, because that is what it is.

True, it isn't an overstatement, it is a bald faced lie. First and foremost, know that your body can only absorb 4 types of sugars....glucose, fructose, galactose, and ribose. It doesn't matter a whit whether the fructose comes from a sugar factory, or tenderly handled bees who only land on organic pesticide free flowers, the chemical structure is the same or your body wouldn't absorb it. You have been fooled into believing a lie.

Here, learn something:

High fructose consumption by adolescents puts them at cardiovascular risk?

Food nannies fail math in effort to blame obesity on high fructose corn syrup

High fructose corn syrup increases risk factors for heart disease?

High fructose corn syrup causes diabetes-myth vs science

Claim: High fructose diet causes liver damage

Study: Neither HFCS nor table sugar increases liver fat under ?real world? conditions

More epidemiology shenanigans

 

[SSDD]

Still looking for the makeup of HFCS?

The makeup of HFCS is the same as that of natural fructose. Genetically, you can only absorb 4 types of sugar....fructose is one. If there were a difference between synthetic fructose and natural fructose, you wouldn't be able to absorb it....clearly we can. The chemical structures of synthetic and natural fructose are identical.

 

[polarbear]

When I looked into the environment forum around 9 this morning every thread had "toady by Abraham3" on it And it`s like that almost every time 24/7
Egocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one's own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information.[1] Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept.

He fits that profile perfectly !

 

[polarbear]

A little bit of an overstatement to call HFCSyrup "a poison" dontchathink??

I bet you could never muster the reasoning and will-power to actually change a small part of your diet just to see if it can bring worthwhile benefits over the sacrifice.


At Golden Coral I would get the plate I dubbed "The Diabetic Special" meaning about 3 plates of only dessert and eat it all rapidly.

Results after ceasing HFCS? I think more clearly in that I am much slower to anger/irritation over small things and truly possess greater desires for education and lucid thought, including mediation. I know you think I am stupid (but its not my fault), but I use to be less calm and much more confused or irritable. I am aware enough to assess my own self.

Here is another one, same problem as this Abraham3
Not a day goes by where this egocentric psycho isn`t here praising himself when he is posting his crap.
As if anyone would care what he is eating...and whatever it is it sure as hell doesn`t seem to work.

...greater desires for education and lucid thought..
I am aware enough to assess my own self.

And writes:

but I use to be less calm and much more confused or irritable

Sounds pretty confused to me!

So you go to that restaurant and "eat 3 plates rapidly"..
just a while ago you criticized me for eating in a restaurant...while you heaped praise on yourself that you don`t... and lived off your "natural capital" which is in your "pristine backyard".
Is that restaurant part of your "natural capital" back-yard ?

I am aware enough to assess my own self

Right...that`s what all the school dropouts and losers prefer to do.

the 3 of you, Abraham3 that "Oroginic" thing and you have a lot in common:

Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one's own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information.[

Tactical ignoring, also known as planned ignoring, is a behavioral management strategy used in response to challenging behavior that seeks to receive attention or to gain a reaction from others.

Doesn`t Obama care pay for psychiatric treatment?

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, talk about failing trigonometry! You folks have really gone off on some wild tangents here!

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not that they were infallible, it's how they were selected. I think if you read the article, it has meaningful results: experts with 15+ peer reviewed articles published are the same scientists that have a good idea of how the environment is affected and they all agree to some basic ranges. But I don't want you to get upset so I won't recommend you read the associated links. Our sources differ but you won't let my sources qualify. Why? 1 single reason: they don't agree with your predetermined answer and hence does not qualify as a source. If you'd like, name 1 favorite of yours. I just gave your 2 but you didn't like them.

No see.. You're missing the point. THey DONT all agree.. There this key critical factor called "Climate Sensitivity".. THAT'S the number that predicts the temperature in 2065. It's silly because it's a "Global Average" and therefore doesn't relate to a dynamic climate system that varies seasonally, geographically, and with surface type, but how these clowns want to present it. So it varies in the literature over a RANGE of 1.2 to 5.5 or so.. So there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory.. Many other examples where you will go completely OFF THE RAILS --- trying to BELIEVE that they all agree.

Why would it? Long term climate change isn't about seasonal or geographic variability. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

"there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory..."

Oh, you mean that scientists have disagreements? Oh my. What is the world coming to?

OF COURSE Climate Change is now about SEASONAL and REGIONAL variability. I watched a Senate Panel of experts called by Dems TELL ME that very thing. That we should focus on "regional signals" and expect seasonal variations.. Need a quote? And generally I agree. The Earth does not HAVE single "averaged" climate.. And projections based on simplistic models assuming a ficticious single climate zone should be ridiculed.

My quote above SHOULD have read (or did read)
"there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most IMPORTANT details of the AGW theory..."

 

[orogenicman]

No see.. You're missing the point. THey DONT all agree.. There this key critical factor called "Climate Sensitivity".. THAT'S the number that predicts the temperature in 2065. It's silly because it's a "Global Average" and therefore doesn't relate to a dynamic climate system that varies seasonally, geographically, and with surface type, but how these clowns want to present it. So it varies in the literature over a RANGE of 1.2 to 5.5 or so.. So there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory.. Many other examples where you will go completely OFF THE RAILS --- trying to BELIEVE that they all agree.

Why would it? Long term climate change isn't about seasonal or geographic variability. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

"there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most details of the AGW theory..."

Oh, you mean that scientists have disagreements? Oh my. What is the world coming to?

OF COURSE Climate Change is now about SEASONAL and REGIONAL variability. I watched a Senate Panel of experts called by Dems TELL ME that very thing. That we should focus on "regional signals" and expect seasonal variations.. Need a quote? And generally I agree. The Earth does not HAVE single "averaged" climate.. And projections based on simplistic models assuming a ficticious single climate zone should be ridiculed.

My quote above SHOULD have read (or did read)
"there IS NO CONSENSUS on some of the most IMPORTANT details of the AGW theory..."

Gee, if only it were so simple as to listen to what someone says in a congressional committee. Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve? It is a pretty important concept in science. Perhaps you should look it up.

 

[polarbear]

Gee, if only it were so simple as to listen to what someone says in a congressional committee. Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve? It is a pretty important concept in science. Perhaps you should look it up.

Why? What makes you think that he doesn`t know what a bell curve is ?
Because you just looked it up and want to impress us today with your newly acquired "mathematical knowledge" piecing together meaningless sentences so that you can incorporate your latest buzz word.

Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Alright then show us the money we could save as a bell curve.
By the way "wild tangent" is a video game and has nothing to do with trigonometry:

Wow, talk about failing trigonometry! You folks have really gone off on some wild tangents here!

If someone were to yank your internet connection you would sit there as dumb as a fence post.
Educated people don`t have to go to a forum 24/7 and brag, frauds like you do it because they have no education and everybody who knows you personally is well aware of that.
But it shows up anyway, no matter how hard you try.

 

[orogenicman]

Gee, if only it were so simple as to listen to what someone says in a congressional committee. Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve? It is a pretty important concept in science. Perhaps you should look it up.

Why? What makes you think that he doesn`t know what a bell curve is ?
Because you just looked it up and want to impress us today with your newly acquired "mathematical knowledge" piecing together meaningless sentences so that you can incorporate your latest buzz word.

Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve?

Alright then show us the money we could save as a bell curve.
By the way "wild tangent" is a video game and has nothing to do with trigonometry:

Wow, talk about failing trigonometry! You folks have really gone off on some wild tangents here!

If someone were to yank your internet connection you would sit there as dumb as a fence post.
Educated people don`t have to go to a forum 24/7 and brag, frauds like you do it because they have no education and everybody who knows you personally is well aware of that.
But it shows up anyway, no matter how hard you try.

Well, polar bareass, you apparently sit there as dumb as a fence post regardless of whether or not you have an internet connection. And it doesn't take a google search to understand the importance of bell curves. Perhaps if you spent more of your time learning instead of wasting other peoples' time with your insults, you might get more out of your life than you do.

 

[Abraham3]

Bingo.

 

[polarbear]

stevia, amusing fellow. and i grew 10 plants myself! how about that!

Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007)....

There was wide agreement that a large percentage of species will go extinct in response to the combined effects of climate change and other causes over the next 100 years, but those respondents with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 17% and 16%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge estimated a mean of 23%. There was also wide agreement among the respondents that a large percentage of species would alter their geographic ranges because of climate change over the next 100 years, but those with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 46% or 44%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses estimated a mean of 59% or 62% of species, respectively.

Conclusions:
Our survey of 2329 environmental biologists is, to our knowledge, the largest systematic survey of expert opinion about climate change and its impacts...The respondents at all levels of expertise offered fairly conservative estimates of future climate change...Still, the lower values revealed in this survey represent an alarmingly large change.

And here is what you edited out, (for obvious reasons):

Considerable uncertainty surrounds projections of climate change and its ecological consequences.

The vast majority of peer-reviewed publications on climate change contain predictions of significant temperature increases and negative effects on biodiversity in the coming decades, but these estimates vary considerably depending on the climate model,

Environmental biologists do not generate climate data themselves but often have deep familiarity with the processes and assumptions underlying those data, as well as their implications

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers

First off let`s compare what the IPCC predicts for the next 100 years with what those who have a high level of "self assessed level of knowledge" have said:
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/8/666/F1.medium.gif

And the IPCC said in AR5:

Predictions

The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios

Which goes to show how "excellent" this "self assessed knowledge" was.

So tell me, since you read nothing but dumb shit like this, how many of these who have an "excellent self assessed level of knowledge" have also predicted just a few years ago that the polar bear population has declined.

The surveys show that it`s been increasing:
env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/Polar%20Bear%20Research%20in%20Nunavut_ENGLISHsmall.pdf

Read it!

19 populations in the world
–13 in Canada
–12 in Nunavut

And all 13 polar bear populations which are in Canada and are carefully surveyed the numbers are up....
Since up to 80% of all the world`s polar bears are in Canada the other 6 groups which are outside of it can`t offset the trend.

And "climate change" has nothing to do with the decline in the other 6 population groups.
But this does:

• Today, polar bears are among the few large carnivores that are still found in roughly their original habitat and range--and in some places, in roughly their natural numbers.
• Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures. As of 2013, 5 of 19 populations were in decline.
• Some populations are still harvested quite heavily, and their status is uncertain.

So much for what your "experts" predicted for polar bears.
South America has the longest list of endangered species.
Earth's Endangered Creatures - Endangered Species of South America
And again climate change has sweet fuck all to do with it.
This is what threatens them:
NTS Insight October 2010 (Issue 2)

Can Asia Learn from Brazil’s Agricultural Success?

Like the rainforest, the cerrado is one of the oldest and most diverse tropical ecosystems and is under threat because of the country's agricultural growth. Over 37 per cent of its original vegetation cover has disappeared due to activities such as farming and agriculture (Conservation International, n.d.). Whether these trade-offs are justified is still subject to intense debate. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in less than 30 years, Brazil has turned itself from a food importer into one of the world’s great bread baskets. Brazil has become ‘the first tropical agricultural giant’ and the first to challenge the dominance of the ‘big five’ food exporters (the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina and the EU).

And that is by far the biggest threat endangered species are facing...it`s what you called "natural capital" :

Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

Once the money argument erodes, so does denier's unity. This has yet to be too public, but as reports come, like "Risky Business" and "natural capital" is recongized, so will the denier's only valid argument.

"recongized"...You just wrote that you don`t get confused any more since you quit eating corn syrup.

See, that`s the problem with "self assessment"...

I am aware enough to assess my own self
...but I use to be less calm and much more confused or irritable

It`s not working for you, but now we know where you got that idea for your new concept where every dummy scores "excellent"

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/8/666/F2.medium.gif

Figure 2 shows the mean percentage of species committed to extinction estimated by respondents with different self-assessed levels of knowledge

Taking you what you and the rest of you freaks are posting here apart is as easy as taking candy from babies...not that I would do the latter, while I`m having way more fun with you 3 retards.

 

[polarbear]

Gee, if only it were so simple as to listen to what someone says in a congressional committee. Think of all the research money we could save. Ever hear of a bell curve? It is a pretty important concept in science. Perhaps you should look it up.

Why? What makes you think that he doesn`t know what a bell curve is ?
Because you just looked it up and want to impress us today with your newly acquired "mathematical knowledge" piecing together meaningless sentences so that you can incorporate your latest buzz word.
Alright then show us the money we could save as a bell curve.
By the way "wild tangent" is a video game and has nothing to do with trigonometry:

Wow, talk about failing trigonometry! You folks have really gone off on some wild tangents here!

If someone were to yank your internet connection you would sit there as dumb as a fence post.
Educated people don`t have to go to a forum 24/7 and brag, frauds like you do it because they have no education and everybody who knows you personally is well aware of that.
But it shows up anyway, no matter how hard you try.

Well, polar bareass, you apparently sit there as dumb as a fence post regardless of whether or not you have an internet connection. And it doesn't take a google search to understand the importance of bell curves. Perhaps if you spent more of your time learning instead of wasting other peoples' time with your insults, you might get more out of your life than you do.

I had to know what a bell curve is long before there was an Internet full of dummies like you.
So when are you going to show as how you express "all the money we could save" in a bell curve?
That could be interesting.
Almost as interesting as that math lesson your buddy Abraham the 3.rd promised us,..but never gave..
how he can figure out how much air a 2.4 liter engine sucks up the intake manifold over a year.

By the way when it comes to insults, that`s where you, Abraham3 and that gnarled up brain excel...since your buddies Thundercrap and "PMZ" have gone. They used to throw the same kind of fits as the 3 of you remaining libtards do.
So what happened to them?
Nah I don`t have to ask...what happens is that they come back here with a new user name after they made too much of an ass of themselves.
Maybe you should try & give it a fresh start too after you figured out that there is no such thing as a "wild tangent" in trigonometry....and that you should have gone to school instead of playing "wild tangent" video games.
Btw. I`m a bit curious why you copied that picture:

From that web site and use it as your avatar
http://digsfossils.com/fossils/russia_trilobite.html

The small brain and what`s in it about bell curves and trigonometry is probably much the same as yours, but in my opinion one of those which look like a maggot would have been more fitting:

Meanwhile take "gnarlies" advice and stay away from corn syrup...else like him or is it a "1/2him & 1/2 her"...I`m not quite sure,...be he/she "use to be less confused" and has trouble to "recongize" stuff.

 

[Kinte]

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the Environmentally Friendly Bank. I have also heard that Al started Microsoft not Bill Gates. I wonder is Gore is still taking the earth's core temperature, last time he did it was several million degrees.

 

[polarbear]

Al Gore is laughing all the way to the Environmentally Friendly Bank. I have also heard that Al started Microsoft not Bill Gates. I wonder is Gore is still taking the earth's core temperature, last time he did it was several million degrees.

He doesn`t have to because according to prophet "Abraham" the 3rd "back radiation" works pretty well the same as a 800 C blow torch:

But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.
1) The amount of radiation coming out of a volume of gas is directly dependent on its temperature (Planck's Law). As temperature rises, the energy under the spectrum curve, including CO2's 15um absorption band, increases.
2) That CO2 absorbs and reemits in a narrow band does not block the movement of radiation, it slows or smears it as radiation is absorbed and reemitted. Fifteen micron radiation does eventually reach the Earth's surface or escapes to space.

 

[gnarlylove]

Going back for a second:

From where do you get the power you use for that TV. I know it can`t be wind or solar because in your previous posts it was clear you have no clue what`s involved in either.

You have little info about my life but you sure seem to know anyway. Your assumptions that I own a car or at least drive regularly is simply false. But you aren't concerned about what really goes on, your concerned about how you can throw mud and name call. Sounds like you also have a real egocentric problem.

But that misses the point: I don't deny I use modern technology to live like a stove. But what makes you think I'm demanding humanity be 100% green or nothing? Clearly you cannot conceive of reasonable action towards restoring the environment. To you AGW means one thing: lunacy. In the same vein, change is also lunacy. Then its no wonder it's all or nothing.

I encourage re-evaluation for how humanity approaches life, as all AGW advocates. This includes thinking about resources extraction to human consumption and waste. Undeniably humanity has degraded the environment through simply living. So if mere living brings about environmental problems that in turn hinder human survival, we need to re-think our efforts. This is not a demand to halt all human activity just so we appease the lunatic dichotomy you have set forth: either do not harm or fuck it, business as usual till we collapse the global economy by bringing about repeated environmental disasters.

just a while ago you criticized me for eating in a restaurant...

Never said that. I think you should eat what you like but I'd hope you'd have reasonable limits--like not eating $100 entrées for every meal or eating a very rare fish every night.

You're whole game is to piss people off and to make unfounded assertions about their personality. It's pretty sad what you take away from that post was I thought you shouldn't eat out peroid.

You basically said: "I will do what I want including drive my car and eat." There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Where I criticized it was you used it like a good reason to ignore environmental concerns. That fact you can do something is not a good indicator to its value, just because I can ejaculate on a woman in public is not a good indication its appropriate or healthy. But just for the record, I'm glad you have the money to eat out. Currently I don't eat out for the simple fact I am saving as much money as possible...but would I eat out if I really wanted to? Yes. Have I? Double Yes. Maybe you could take me out sometime...since you hope I'm effeminate, maybe I could dress up like your date!

while you heaped praise on yourself that you don`t

I'll just wait here for you to show me where I praised myself for not eating out... quoting made up stuff imaginative interpretation doesn't count...

Right...that`s what all the school dropouts and losers prefer to do.

Although I have 2 baccalaureates with a 3.6 overall GPA I'll play devils advocate: Hell yes Ima dropout and lazy MFer. Why would you do something rather than nothing? Doing nothing is the easy route and I take it every day. JOKING!

Sounds like you ought to be familiar with this concept given your denial of our impact on the planet. Doing nothing is the cheapest easiest way to address environmental degradation from hog lagoons to melting ice to climate change.

The real problem is you are repulsed by our existence because you operate based on hate and division. I do not share this view and have mildly poked fun in jest only. Nothing serious but you however go into a spill about the psychology of egocentricity and calling everyone fags. You sound pretty dedicated to undermining the credibility of your opponents and want nothing to do with above-board thought.

Even if everyone is a fag, it doesn't undermine the fact humans are damaging our environment faster than it can restore itself.

Since you obviously are not egocentric you must be the most altruistic person alive. Oh? You're admitting you have egocentric problems too? Oh, no, that must have been the wind and my imagination. You'd never admit you are very demanding or your ego is larger than you: the first sign of ego is denying an ego. I admit I have an ego but its not an ego that denies its own existence in order to retain power. That is an American grade ego that takes high octane ignorance and hate in order to thrive.

So why don`t you join some primitive tribe in the Amazon jungle.

I know because you KNOW what's best for me and that's not egocentric on your part.

By the way my attention span is just fine and I recall somebody who said the exact same thing you just said,...and also said that he lives off his "45 acre pristine back-yard" with his "partner"...and posted exactly the same garbage you are.
So now you (and your fag "partner"?) are back here again with a brand new user name posting the same garbage as before over and over again.

Haven't heard of it but you must be right. Despite your speculation and paranoia, I assure you they have medication for that--there's no need to fear. But since you fear loosing and express such conspiracies, and I'd think your ego did some gymnastics there in order to stabilize the threat to your superiority.

All the "effeminate" this, "fag" that, "looser" this and "stupid" that surely have no connection to your ego. Certainly name calling has nothing to do with an ego that's out of control and feels threatened. No, you prefer hate and anger--it's your game.

If I had not better things to do I`ld dig it up and stick it back into your face.

That sounds like someone who NEEDS to be right all the time. And we all know that ain't egocentric.

By the way, next time you walk to town, get yourself some "petroleum lifestyle" meds and calm down, so that you don`t get confused how to spell simple words like "pertroluem" when you have your next tantrum.

I know misspelling petroleum is a huge crux in your argument so I'll let it stand. JOKING! But you know so much about me, I wish you were my doctor. I wasn't aware I had a "tantrum."

Clearly I need your brand of anger to calm me down.

 

[skookerasbil]

You know, there are people in this world who just want to do something for the sake of doing it.......unintended consequences be damned. If the intentions appear good.......just do it. Interestingly, many of these people are known as intellectuals.....good schools.......good GPA's etc.......

But lets remember........there is no correlation between intellect and thought processing. Two very different things ( which is why I never call people a "retard" on here like some of the other genius' ). Some people......some very smart people, have pronounced difficulties processing all of their thoughts......the disconnect, as lay people jokingly refer to it as.


Thought Process Disorder -- Medical Definition


"difficulties making correct associations"..........



I call them mental cases, or k00ks.




Which is precisely why I have such a hoot in this forum.........Im laughing all the time. You cant have a reasonable debate with people who cant connect dots with any level of skill. To do so would be absurd.........which is why the only thing to do is just be more absurd than they are. Which I do exceedingly well...........