On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You really need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****. English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing difference, do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now, before, or later.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's pretty
much it.

It gets me there quicker. You're the one stupid enough to wait for imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB wrote:

1.* 'It' is a pronoun.* The others are not.* Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not.* 'It' is a pronoun.* Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference.* You really
need
to get a life.* Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate.* It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun.* Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason.* Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that way
over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc.* It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****.* English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each.* Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500.* You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

* Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not.* Geez, you're illiterate.* Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle.* You don't even know the ****ing difference,
do you?

There is no point in the difference.* Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

2.* For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life.* You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you?* A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about
the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights.* That's pretty
much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

On 15/06/2019 17:24, Keema's Nan wrote:

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much longer.

I am sitting back as a spectator but I though I would point out a
trivial mistake. CO2 and H2O are compounds, not elements. I'm hoping
this correction pre-empts deniers that would hope to use the error as a
time wasting exercise in place of debate.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:15:27 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbuster®™", farted again:


So the solution is...exhale more, fart less!

It's just like you keep saying, eh, gay anal Razovic: "In excremento
veritas."?

--
More from dumb anal Goran Razovic's anal world:
"In excremento veritas."
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 06:42:23 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:


Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!! Oh, the IRONY!

--
Dumb anal Razovic's confession on June 30th, 2018:
"Oh no I got a jew hair in my mouth from sucking jew ani"
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:23:47 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH the two clinically insane prize idiots' endless sick bull**** unread
again

....and nothing's left, as usual!

--
Gay anal Razovic about her predilection, on March 23rd 2019:
"Jewish ani? yum!
Sodomised Jewish ani? YUM!!!"
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 09:19:56 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH all the pathological troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
The REAL "GB" addressing psychopathic loser Razovic on Usenet:
"You are so sad and wretched. How could one not feel pity for you? A
foul, loathsome creature, wallowing in your own filth. Never seeing the
light of day. A life utterly wasted."
MID:

GB wrote:
On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB
wrote:
On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB
wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the
****ing difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You
really need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that
way over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns,
verbs, adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to
illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by
teaching unimportant useless bull****. English is not
mathematics, it doesn't need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's
what keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense,
done is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing
difference, do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad
boring little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of
****, aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations
about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate
little piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's
pretty much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

You are aware that you are replying to Peter Hucker? One of the biggest
******/trolls on the Internet.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 18:55:46 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

GB wrote:
On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB
wrote:
On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB
wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the
****ing difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You
really need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that
way over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns,
verbs, adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to
illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by
teaching unimportant useless bull****. English is not
mathematics, it doesn't need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's
what keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense,
done is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing
difference, do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad
boring little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of
****, aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations
about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate
little piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's
pretty much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

You are aware that you are replying to Peter Hucker? One of the biggest
******/trolls on the Internet.

Get a life.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:19:56 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You really
need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that way
over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Like I said, you're following rules with no reasoning. A sure sign of no brain.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by teaching
unimportant useless bull****. English is not mathematics, it doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

Have the 6500 if you want, it only makes my point much stronger.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing difference,
do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

Of course it is, it means it occurred at a time earlier than now.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of ****,
aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about
the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's pretty
much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

We have 50 times more scenery than England for a start.

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

It means I go where I want to go, not where a piece of electronics in a traffic light wants me to.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly ****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?...there will always be an equilibrium
point...
all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans

look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methane’s effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the planet’s
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.


--
www.abelard.org

On 6/15/2019 10:55 AM, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
GB wrote:
On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB
wrote:
On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB
wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the
****ing difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You
really need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that
way over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns,
verbs, adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to
illiterates like you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by
teaching unimportant useless bull****. English is not
mathematics, it doesn't need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's
what keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense,
done is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing
difference, do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad
boring little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of
****, aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations
about the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate
little piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's
pretty much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

You are aware that you are replying to Peter Hucker? One of the biggest
******/trolls on the Internet.

Yes indeed, Mr Bounder...very much so.

On 6/15/2019 11:20 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:19:56 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB
wrote:

1.* 'It' is a pronoun.* The others are not.* Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not.* 'It' is a pronoun.* Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference.* You really
need
to get a life.* Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate.* It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun.* Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason.* Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason?* There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****.* It evolved that way
over two thousand years.* Typical illiterate.

Like I said, you're following rules with no reasoning.* A sure sign of
no brain.

Like I said, the evolution of language doesn't involve reason. Are you
****ing stupid or something?

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc.* It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by
teaching
unimportant useless bull****.* English is not mathematics, it
doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each.* Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500.* You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

Have the 6500 if you want, it only makes my point much stronger.

You didn't HAVE a point.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

* Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not.* Geez, you're illiterate.* Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle.* You don't even know the ****ing difference,
do you?

There is no point in the difference.* Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference:* something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

Of course it is, it means it occurred at a time earlier than now.

You're obviously too thick to appreciate subtle differences in meaning.
Have you ever read a ****ing book?

2.* For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life.* You really are a sad
boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of
****,
aren't you?* A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about
the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights.* That's
pretty
much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker?* To do WHAT?* There's nothing to do up there!

We have 50 times more scenery than England for a start.

So what? It's always ****ing raining. And dark.

Don't tell me you drive drunk through red lights just to see the scenery
quicker.

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

It means I go where I want to go, not where a piece of electronics in a
traffic light wants me to.

Like I said, you think you have achieved some degree of 'control' over
your miserable little life because you disobeyed a traffic light.

"Liar Liar" wrote in message
...
On 6/15/19 3:45 AM, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 15 Jun 2019, Xeno wrote
(in article ):

On 15/6/19 10:59 am, Gladys Street-Porter wrote:
Xeno explained on 6/14/2019 :
On 14/6/19 6:31 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In , Xeno
wrote:

The science on climate change was *settled* in 1981 according to a
report put out at the time.
Science is *never* "settled", as anyone who knows anything about it -
not you, it would seem - will say.
Not my word, the word of climate scientists in general. All that has
happened since 1981 has been further confirmation of what was
determined in the 81 report.

Are you a climate scientist? I suspect not.
Peers Corbyn is. He says we're in a period of cooling and the Sun's
energy, not CO2, is the cause of climate change on our planet. He also
says CO2 is a result of warming, not the cause of it.
The sun is the source of *heat*. Climate change is the result of CO2
trapping the reradiated heat from the earth's surface.

The excess CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning, agriculture
(methane acts the same as CO2)
Methane is not €œthe same€� as CO2 when it comes to greenhouse effects.

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

The only question is how few years have we got?Maybe 10, 20?

and removal of forest cover.
I think we're all agreed then? Three cheers for Peers Corbyn...but not
his bother Jeremy.
Your *example* is a consensus of *one*. Hardly convincing.

Al Gore started this global warming bull****.

Nope, jumped on the bandwagon long after it got started.

But all this global warming nonsense doesn't stop two-faced Al Gore from
taking private jets.

https://dcstatesman.com/al-gore-busted-private-jet-use/

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:10:29 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:52 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:03:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:47:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:06:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:30:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:57:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:45:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention
to
these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical
socket
to
your
own home,

That's a pig ignorant lie.

Well that's what the link says.

Its wrong.

It is interest ring that the people who still live under a
queen

They dont.

can't read the queen's English

That isnt Liz's english.

"Repairs you can do yourself

However, there are some jobs that you can do yourself without
calling
in a qualified electrician as long as you are competent with
DIY/Handyman works around the house. These do not fall under
€˜Part
P
guidelines, so you dont have to notify your local building
control
body if you want to:

Replace light bulbs or plug fuses
Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like"

In fact you are free to add a new socket to the ring main too.

You can do what the **** you like as it's in your own home and
nobody
inspects it.

I meant its legal to do that.

Apparently not, only replacing existing ones.

Wrong, ask Adam.

Like he'd know any more than any other electrician.

Corse he knows whats legal.

You claimed mine didn't.

He clearly doesnt.

I don't think anybody does, or cares.

Adam lives in a council house, mine owns three properties.

Irrelevant to how well yours knows the english regulations.

I doubt Adam is any more intelligent than my bloke.

He is anyway. Your fool cant even work out whats legal in england

He doesn't care,

He obviously does when he whined to you about that.

and doesn't live in England.

And is actually stupid enough to 'live' in scotland.

or how to get away with what he claims is illegal and isnt.

He gets away with loads.

But clearly not that which is trivial to get away with, because he is that
stupid.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:08:18 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:35:44 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:43:03 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Pat Sajak said it best:

"Only when we have enough laws to properly govern our behavior can we
truly enjoy the freedoms of America".

He was entirely wrong. There is no freedom with all these rules.
Leave
us alone!

Fortunately, other than being a game show host, nobody listens to Pat
Sajack about much of anything.
Here in Florida we may not be able to count votes but we can do our
own electrical work and damned near anything else in our own home.
You can pull your own permit for anything from a total house rewire to
doing all of the plumbing and all of the HVAC, along with building the
whole house yourself.
In my area they aren't even very particular about getting a permit if
you can't see the work from the street.
You can count on the tax man showing up tho. He is airborne.

In Scotland I can do anything I like unless it impinges on a neighbour.

That's wrong too.

Give an example.

I can build a garage, a conservatory, I can do anything electrical.

That's wrong too.

No it isn't. There are no regulations about me doing my own wiring. I
can rewire the whole house if I wish.

You can't do whats between your CU and the street supply.

Garages, conservatories, anything that isn't an actual "extension" do not
require permission.

And what is, does.

Check the government website.

Don't need to.

Not gas, but who can see :-) An extension to the house apparently needs
planning permission,

And so does the original house.

It's already here, what's your point?

That when it isnt, it needs planning permission.

but all that means is paying a small fee and having all the neighbours
the opportunity to say "it would block my light".

That's wrong too.

State why.

Because that's what the regulations say.

? But if it's got enough windows, it's called a conservatory and is
exempt
:-)

Wrong again.

Bull****, check the government website, there is a percentage of glass for
it to be classed as a conservatory.

And it isnt viable to do an extension that way.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:19:51 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:10:29 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:52 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:03:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:47:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:06:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:30:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:57:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:45:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention
to
these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical
socket
to
your
own home,

That's a pig ignorant lie.

Well that's what the link says.

Its wrong.

It is interest ring that the people who still live under a
queen

They dont.

can't read the queen's English

That isnt Liz's english.

"Repairs you can do yourself

However, there are some jobs that you can do yourself without
calling
in a qualified electrician as long as you are competent with
DIY/Handyman works around the house. These do not fall under
€˜Part
P
guidelines, so you dont have to notify your local building
control
body if you want to:

Replace light bulbs or plug fuses
Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like"

In fact you are free to add a new socket to the ring main too.

You can do what the **** you like as it's in your own home and
nobody
inspects it.

I meant its legal to do that.

Apparently not, only replacing existing ones.

Wrong, ask Adam.

Like he'd know any more than any other electrician.

Corse he knows whats legal.

You claimed mine didn't.

He clearly doesnt.

I don't think anybody does, or cares.

Adam lives in a council house, mine owns three properties.

Irrelevant to how well yours knows the english regulations.

I doubt Adam is any more intelligent than my bloke.

He is anyway. Your fool cant even work out whats legal in england

He doesn't care,

He obviously does when he whined to you about that.

No, I brought the subject up.

and doesn't live in England.

And is actually stupid enough to 'live' in scotland.

The houses are a fifth of the price. It's quieter, with more open space and scenery, and less Muslims.

or how to get away with what he claims is illegal and isnt.

He gets away with loads.

But clearly not that which is trivial to get away with, because he is that
stupid.

In Scotland there's not much that has to be gotten away with.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:04:08 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:25:01 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:19:24 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:16:18 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 12/06/2019 18:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home, but you can change the brakes on your car. The second
one is
FAR more dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/

While I'm no fan of Part P and I'm not defending it, perhaps you'd
be
less irate if you checked a decent source.

That one has obvious contradictions. Eg: Look at the entry
referring
to
sockets in both lists. (Item 1 in first list, 3&4 in second
list.)

I guess it's one of those rules that nobody understands. A
(Scottish,
therefore not subject to part P) electrician told me you couldn't
even
replace a lightswitch in England without a certificate.

That is not what the list you posted said in things you can do.

+1

The list is also somewhat contradictory and stupid in at leas some
places.
Like:

DIY Not allowed:

Re-wire sockets or lights that are faulty and causing the fuse to trip


Allowed:

Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like
Make repairs to loose wirings in switches, light fittings, or plugs
Replace light switches
Replace sockets

So if you have a light fixture with an obvious short, you can't
replace it yourself. And good luck enforcing that BS.

You're not allowed to install a "home entry system". What's that?
Security alarm?

I think they are saying that if you have a wiring fault you should
call a pro but you can throw a receptacle, switch or luminaire at it
to see if that fixes anything first.

Which is insane, because an idiot could just as easily cause a fire by
replacing a switch badly.

Wrong, that doesn't cause a fire. The only two likely results is that
doesn't
work or takes out the fuse.

Loose cables connected to anything can cause arcs and heating.

But not fires, because the socket, switch etc don't burn.

Or you might put the wrong switch in without the appropriate current
carrying capabilities.

That just sees the switch fail, doesn't start a fire.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:02:40 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 11:20 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:19:56 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 8:13 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 15:23:47 +0100, GB wrote:

On 6/15/2019 7:10 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 14:42:23 +0100, GB
wrote:

1. 'It' is a pronoun. The others are not. Using it's as the
possessive would be like using he's or him's instead of his.

It, John, car, cat, they are all nouns.

No, they are not. 'It' is a pronoun. Do you even know the ****ing
difference?

The point is I don't CARE about the ****ing difference. You really
need
to get a life. Why should it have any less importance than cat or
car?

The point is you're ****ing illiterate. It doesn't have less
importance
than car or car, it's just different.

For no reason, just for the sake of your pointless rules.

For the simple reason that it's a pronoun and not a noun. Nothing
pointless about that, except to a dumb **** like you.

Yet you can't give me that reason. Typical bible basher, because it
says so in the book, we do it, nevermind if it makes sense.

Reason? There is no ****ing reason, you dumb ****. It evolved that way
over two thousand years. Typical illiterate.

Like I said, you're following rules with no reasoning. A sure sign of
no brain.

Like I said, the evolution of language doesn't involve reason. Are you
****ing stupid or something?

But you don't want it to evolve, you want hard and fast rules.

Stop categorising stuff for no reason.

There's a valid reason for words to be categorised as nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. It helps when teaching English to illiterates like
you.

It delays teaching the important aspects of the language, by
teaching
unimportant useless bull****. English is not mathematics, it
doesn't
need pedantic rules.

The grammar IS the most important aspect of the language...it's what
keeps the language together!

We have 50 different languages throughout the world, all with 50
different dialects each. Get used to it, nobody follows your silly
rules.

We have far more than 50 languages throughout the world...more like
6500. You're just showing your ignorance again.

Not common ones.

Common enough to the people who use them.

Have the 6500 if you want, it only makes my point much stronger.

You didn't HAVE a point.

You want regulations on how to write, yet there are 6500 versions of it. It would be like you moaning about the way Windows works, when there's MacOS, Unix, and 6547 others that are completely different.

I know people in Glasgow who say "that's been did" instead of
"that's been done" - it means precisely the same thing, it doesn't
matter which word is used.

Yes, it does...'that's been did' is illiterate.

Did and done are both the past tense of do

No, they're not. Geez, you're illiterate. Did is the past tense, done
is the past participle. You don't even know the ****ing difference,
do you?

There is no point in the difference. Something either happens now,
before, or later.

There is every point in the difference: something happened is not the
same as something has happened.

Of course it is, it means it occurred at a time earlier than now.

You're obviously too thick to appreciate subtle differences in meaning.

I'm intelligent enough not to care about pointless differences in meaning.

Have you ever read a ****ing book?

Occasionally, when I'm somewhere without a TV.

2. For the intelligent and literate among us, it helps to
identify the
stupid and illiterate.

It helps to identify those with a life. You really are a sad
boring
little **** aren't you?

You really are a thick, pig ignorant, desperate little piece of
****,
aren't you? A total loser.

Because I don't waste my time following pointless regulations about
the
usage of words?

They're far from pointless, you thick, pig ignorant, desperate little
piece of ****.

FFS go get a hobby.

Get a LIFE, you dumb ****.

I do, and it doesn't involve rules.

Your 'life' consists of driving drunk through red lights. That's
pretty much it.

It gets me there quicker.

Where quicker? To do WHAT? There's nothing to do up there!

We have 50 times more scenery than England for a start.

So what? It's always ****ing raining.

True, but we never get hosepipe bans and nobody has a water meter.

And dark.

In summer it's actually lighter.

Don't tell me you drive drunk through red lights just to see the scenery
quicker.

It gets me to the nice places quicker.

You're the one stupid enough to wait for
imaginary pedestrians and traffic.

You're the one stupid enough to think this gives you some degree of
'control' over your miserable life.

It means I go where I want to go, not where a piece of electronics in a
traffic light wants me to.

Like I said, you think you have achieved some degree of 'control' over
your miserable little life because you disobeyed a traffic light.

Not just one.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:02:07 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:26:45 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:07:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:19:24 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:16:18 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 12/06/2019 18:02, Commander Kinsey wrote:
This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention to
these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical socket to
your
own home, but you can change the brakes on your car. The second
one
is
FAR more dangerous to other people!

https://www.mglondon.uk/blog/electri...n-electrician/

While I'm no fan of Part P and I'm not defending it, perhaps
you'd
be
less irate if you checked a decent source.

That one has obvious contradictions. Eg: Look at the entry
referring
to
sockets in both lists. (Item 1 in first list, 3&4 in second
list.)

I guess it's one of those rules that nobody understands. A
(Scottish,
therefore not subject to part P) electrician told me you couldn't
even
replace a lightswitch in England without a certificate.

That is not what the list you posted said in things you can do.

+1

The list is also somewhat contradictory and stupid in at leas some
places.
Like:

DIY Not allowed:

Re-wire sockets or lights that are faulty and causing the fuse to
trip


Allowed:

Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like
Make repairs to loose wirings in switches, light fittings, or plugs
Replace light switches
Replace sockets

So if you have a light fixture with an obvious short, you can't
replace it yourself. And good luck enforcing that BS.

You're not allowed to install a "home entry system". What's that?
Security alarm?

I think they are saying that if you have a wiring fault you should
call a pro but you can throw a receptacle, switch or luminaire at it
to see if that fixes anything first.

I doubt many of us on the left side of the pond know much about
ring circuits but it might be confusing the first time you see one.

Not really, the main difference is the fusing. All pretty simple
really.

The fusing isn't different at all.

Corse it is. Much higher fuse ratings with a ring.

No,

Yep.

if I made a circuit for sockets, I'd have the same 30A fuse,

Yep, you actually are that incompetent.

but have it in a straight line with one 30A cable.

Yep, you actually are that incompetent.

If the cable comes undone, no power. If a cable comes undone in a ring,
30A allowed through 15A of cable, fire!

Nope, no fire.

The difference is instead of a 30A cable, we use two 15A cables.

Wrong again.

It is not wrong.

Corse it is.

The cables are rated lower than the fuse (which is ****ing stupid if one
breaks).

Nope, works fine, no fire.

And a lot less cabling is required.

It's fractionally more cabling actually as you have to complete the
circle.

Even sillier than you usually manage and
that's saying something. A number of spurs
uses much more cable than a ring, stupid.

Saves on copper after the war....

Yes. But that isnt the only advantage of a ring.

There are no other points to it.

Wrong, as always. Much easier to have one ring
around everything than lots of spurs all going
back to the CU.

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise

Isnt going to happen and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:06:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nope, jumped on the bandwagon long after it got started.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal 85-year-old
auto-contradicting senile sow?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 06:03:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Bull**** it is.

"Bull****" would make the perfect nym for you!

FLUSH the rest of your usual senile bull****

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 11:57:49 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:


You are aware that you are replying to Peter Hucker? One of the biggest
******/trolls on the Internet.

Yes indeed, Mr Bounder...very much so.

You ARE aware that YOU also are one of the biggest ******s/trolls on Usenet,
dumb gay anal Razovic? Of COURSE you are! You are even "proud" of it!

--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:02:40 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:


Like I said

Like anyone would give a **** what you say, dreckserb Razovic! LOL

--
Gay anal Razovic about her predilection, on March 23rd 2019:
"Jewish ani? yum!
Sodomised Jewish ani? YUM!!!"
MID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:00:59 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH the two abnormal prize idiots' latest absolutely idiotic bull****
unread again

--
The REAL "GB" addressing psychopathic loser Razovic on Usenet:
"You are so sad and wretched. How could one not feel pity for you? A
foul, loathsome creature, wallowing in your own filth. Never seeing the
light of day. A life utterly wasted."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:34:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

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

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

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

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

MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:28:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two clinically insane idiots' latest ****

--
Another typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish ****** and the
senile Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse **** doesn't stink."

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

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

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

Message-ID:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:19:51 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 02:10:29 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:02:52 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:03:40 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:47:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:06:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:30:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 03:57:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:45:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

This is insane. Legally (like anyone pays any attention
to
these
laws)
you cannot do simple things like fitting an electrical
socket
to
your
own home,

That's a pig ignorant lie.

Well that's what the link says.

Its wrong.

It is interest ring that the people who still live under a
queen

They dont.

can't read the queen's English

That isnt Liz's english.

"Repairs you can do yourself

However, there are some jobs that you can do yourself
without
calling
in a qualified electrician as long as you are competent with
DIY/Handyman works around the house. These do not fall under
€˜Part
P
guidelines, so you dont have to notify your local building
control
body if you want to:

Replace light bulbs or plug fuses
Replace a simple light fitting
Replace an existing socket or light switch like for like"

In fact you are free to add a new socket to the ring main
too.

You can do what the **** you like as it's in your own home and
nobody
inspects it.

I meant its legal to do that.

Apparently not, only replacing existing ones.

Wrong, ask Adam.

Like he'd know any more than any other electrician.

Corse he knows whats legal.

You claimed mine didn't.

He clearly doesnt.

I don't think anybody does, or cares.

Adam lives in a council house, mine owns three properties.

Irrelevant to how well yours knows the english regulations.

I doubt Adam is any more intelligent than my bloke.

He is anyway. Your fool cant even work out whats legal in england

He doesn't care,

He obviously does when he whined to you about that.

No, I brought the subject up.

He still pig ignorantly whined about it when you did.

and doesn't live in England.

And is actually stupid enough to 'live' in scotland.

The houses are a fifth of the price.

Plenty in england are too.

It's quieter, with more open space and scenery,

And lots more rain and ****ing frigid too.

and less Muslims.

But riddled with hairy legged cross dressers and glaswegians.

or how to get away with what he claims is illegal and isnt.

He gets away with loads.

But clearly not that which is trivial to get away with, because he is
that
stupid.

In Scotland there's not much that has to be gotten away with.

Irrelevant to him being too stupid to do that in england.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:19:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 150 !!! lines of the two clinically insane idiots' sick
blather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 05:24:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two assholes' sick ****

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

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

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

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

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

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

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

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

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

Message-ID:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:55:12 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, IMPERSONATING her master "GB", farted again:

FLUSH all the clinically insane ****

....and much better air in here again!

--
More from dumb anal Goran Razovic's anal world:
"In excremento veritas."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 06:32:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 181 !!! lines of the two clinically insane idiots' troll****

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

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

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

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

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

MID:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

Do some research.

...there will always be an equilibrium
point...

Prove it.


all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

On 15 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,

Bull**** it is.

And your proof of this is, where?



the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the greenhouse
effect.

We have in fact been doing that ever since we invented agriculture.

A link to your figures might make your argument a little more effective than
zero.



Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise

Isnt going to happen

Prove it.

and we saw a much greater rise than that in the past.

A link to your figures might make your argument a little more effective than
zero.



in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on
the planet and much of the fertile crop growing lands.

That last is bull**** too.

Prove it.



Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.



a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

Useless.

You are just another ignorant troll who deems his personal opinion to be
precise fact without any proof whatsoever.

There are loads of your kind thrashing around on usenet with nothing
significant to say.

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

But has never happened on earth, even when the atmospheric
CO2 levels where much higher than they are now.

...there will always be an equilibrium point...

Prove it.

Thats what has always happened on earth.

all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and
much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

On 16 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

But has never happened on earth, even when the atmospheric
CO2 levels where much higher than they are now.

Is that the best you can do?

It hasnt happened yet, so it cant happen....



...there will always be an equilibrium point...

Prove it.

Thats what has always happened on earth.

No proof I see. Killfile for another troll.

Good luck with your €œfingers-crossed€� science.



all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway global
warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10 metre
rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet and
much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic) into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there much
longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 16 Jun 2019, Rod Speed wrote
(in article ):


"Keema's Nan" wrote in message
news.com...
On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:24:32 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

On 15 Jun 2019, abelard wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 08:45:48 +0100, Keema's Nan
wrote:

Methane is 80 (yes; eighty) times more effective than CO2 as a
greenhouse
gas, so when all that methane trapped under the frozen tundra
starts to
bubble to the surface as the tundra melts, humans are well and
truly
****ed.

your numbers are dodgy

No my numbers are not dodgy.

please don't argue

there is also far more co2 than methane involved

what is 'run away gw?

It is what happened on Venus.

But has never happened on earth, even when the atmospheric
CO2 levels where much higher than they are now.

Is that the best you can do?

Its what matters.

It hasnt happened yet, so it cant happen....

It didnt happen here when CO2 levels were much higher than
they are now, so there is no point in hyperventilating now.

...there will always be an equilibrium point...

Prove it.

Thats what has always happened on earth.

No proof I see. Killfile for another troll.

Just another ****wit child, putting its fingers in its ears,
closing its eyes and chanting 'nyah, nyah, can't hear ya'

Good luck with your €œfingers-crossed€� science.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag, gutless.

all numbers are meaningless without context

one equilibrium possibility is no humans


look at the tables here
https://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.php

co2 stays in the atmosphere god knows how long...
methane for about 14 years...

Yes methanes effectiveness is much shorter than CO2, but if the
planets
atmosphere is on a knife-edge between equilibrium and runaway
global
warming,
the last thing it will want is a rapid short term boost to the
greenhouse
effect.

Remember that the first threat, with rising sea temperatures, is
the
expansion of the water (and the oceans have lots of water). A 10
metre
rise
in sea levels is going to inundate every coastal city on the planet
and
much
of the fertile crop growing lands.

Remember also that methane breaks down (oxidises for the pedantic)
into
various forms, the main ones being CO2 and Water Vapour which are
both
efficient greenhouse gases. So, even though the methane may not
last
more
than 10-14 years, the elements which it turns into will be there
much
longer.

a measure used is, effects after 100 years

methane thus has a much worse short term effect
but attenuates much more rapidly than co2...

See above.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:05:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senil Mr Know-it-all's latest troll****

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: