On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â*On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



Â*"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â* On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â* :

Â* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â* On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â*Â* :

Â*Â* On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â*Â* On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
Â*Â*Â* :

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It's bloody obvious to me.Â* We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And the world was perfectly fine back then.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
Â*Â*Â* high
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* as they are now.

Â*Â*Â* Why does man have to be there?

Â*Â*Â* Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
Â*Â* none
Â*Â*Â* too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Â*Â* Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Â*Â* Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
Â*Â* because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
Â*Â* other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
Â*Â* have the changes happened so quickly.

Â*Â* You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

Â* No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
Â* it did in the past.Â* And that we would manage also.Â* You do
know how much CO2
Â* is required to kill you, right?

Â* The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Â*Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
Â*all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

Â*We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

Â*or at least likely so,

More bull****.

Â*and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

Â*If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get started:
Â* http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

Â* but we are in a great extinction

Â*Bull****.

Â*There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

Â* and it may end up including humans.

Â*No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

Â*The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

Â* We rely on many other species

Â*Only a few actually.

Â*Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

Â* and the ecosystems we are destroying.

Â*The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

Â*You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

Â*The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

On May 7, 2021 at 7:57:08 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â*On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



Â*"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â* On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â* :

Â* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â* On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â*Â* :

Â*Â* On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â*Â* On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
Â*Â*Â* :

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It's bloody obvious to me.Â* We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And the world was perfectly fine back then.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
Â*Â*Â* high
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* as they are now.

Â*Â*Â* Why does man have to be there?

Â*Â*Â* Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
Â*Â* none
Â*Â*Â* too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Â*Â* Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Â*Â* Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
Â*Â* because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
Â*Â* other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
Â*Â* have the changes happened so quickly.

Â*Â* You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

Â* No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
Â* it did in the past.Â* And that we would manage also.Â* You do
know how much CO2
Â* is required to kill you, right?

Â* The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Â*Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
Â*all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

Â*We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

Â*or at least likely so,

More bull****.

Â*and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

Â*If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get started:
Â* http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

Â* but we are in a great extinction

Â*Bull****.

Â*There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

Â* and it may end up including humans.

Â*No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

Â*The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

Â* We rely on many other species

Â*Only a few actually.

Â*Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

Â* and the ecosystems we are destroying.

Â*The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

Â*You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

Â*The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

I cannot prove evidence was presented not.

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

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

On 2021-05-07 8:07 p.m., Snit wrote:
On May 7, 2021 at 7:57:08 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â*On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



Â*"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â* On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â* :

Â* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â* On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â*Â* :

Â*Â* On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â*Â* On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
Â*Â*Â* :

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It's bloody obvious to me.Â* We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And the world was perfectly fine back then.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
Â*Â*Â* high
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* as they are now.

Â*Â*Â* Why does man have to be there?

Â*Â*Â* Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
Â*Â* none
Â*Â*Â* too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Â*Â* Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Â*Â* Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
Â*Â* because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
Â*Â* other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
Â*Â* have the changes happened so quickly.

Â*Â* You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

Â* No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
Â* it did in the past.Â* And that we would manage also.Â* You do
know how much CO2
Â* is required to kill you, right?

Â* The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Â*Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
Â*all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

Â*We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

Â*or at least likely so,

More bull****.

Â*and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

Â*If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get started:
Â* http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

Â* but we are in a great extinction

Â*Bull****.

Â*There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

Â* and it may end up including humans.

Â*No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

Â*The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

Â* We rely on many other species

Â*Only a few actually.

Â*Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

Â* and the ecosystems we are destroying.

Â*The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

Â*You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

Â*The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

I cannot prove evidence was presented not.

i didn't know we were doing presence this year

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


Happy to:

http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/

Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change

Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.

Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.

Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.

No need to hyperventilate, stupid.

reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

"%" wrote in message
...
On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man made
climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change, that=E2=80=99s
obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of
the
change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
And the world was perfectly fine back then.

There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
high
as they are now.

Why does man have to be there?

Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
none
too happy about man creating the current mass extinction we
are in.

Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
because in the past there were other times of high CO2, though
there were
other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
have the changes happened so quickly.

You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
it did in the past. And that we would manage also. You do know
how much CO2
is required to kill you, right?

The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

or at least likely so,

More bull****.

and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get
started:
http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

but we are in a great extinction

Bull****.

There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

and it may end up including humans.

No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

We rely on many other species

Only a few actually.

Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit from
many more.

More bull****.

and the ecosystems we are destroying.

The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

Just did.

On May 7, 2021 at 8:23:34 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"%" wrote in message
...
On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man made
climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change, that=E2=80=99s
obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much of
the
change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
And the world was perfectly fine back then.

There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
high
as they are now.

Why does man have to be there?

Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
none
too happy about man creating the current mass extinction we
are in.

Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
because in the past there were other times of high CO2, though
there were
other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
have the changes happened so quickly.

You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
it did in the past. And that we would manage also. You do know
how much CO2
is required to kill you, right?

The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

or at least likely so,

More bull****.

and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get
started:
http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

but we are in a great extinction

Bull****.

There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

and it may end up including humans.

No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

We rely on many other species

Only a few actually.

Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit from
many more.

More bull****.

and the ecosystems we are destroying.

The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

Just did.

First you must figure out what evidence is.

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

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

On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


Happy to:

http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/

Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change

Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.

Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.

Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.

No need to hyperventilate, stupid.

reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence and prefer ignorance. That is your choice.


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

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

On May 7, 2021 at 8:11:10 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-05-07 8:07 p.m., Snit wrote:
On May 7, 2021 at 7:57:08 PM MST, "%" wrote
:

On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â*On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



Â*"Snit" wrote in message
...
Â* On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â* :

Â* On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â* On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
Â*Â* :

Â*Â* On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

Â*Â*Â* On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
Â*Â*Â* :

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It's bloody obvious to me.Â* We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* And the world was perfectly fine back then.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
Â*Â*Â* high
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* as they are now.

Â*Â*Â* Why does man have to be there?

Â*Â*Â* Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
Â*Â* none
Â*Â*Â* too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Â*Â* Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Â*Â* Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
Â*Â* because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
Â*Â* other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere even
near as high
Â*Â* have the changes happened so quickly.

Â*Â* You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

Â* No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
Â* it did in the past.Â* And that we would manage also.Â* You do
know how much CO2
Â* is required to kill you, right?

Â* The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Â*Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
Â*all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

Â*We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

Â*or at least likely so,

More bull****.

Â*and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

Â*If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get started:
Â* http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

Â* but we are in a great extinction

Â*Bull****.

Â*There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

Â* and it may end up including humans.

Â*No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

Â*The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not lead
to a great extinction.

Bull****.

Â* We rely on many other species

Â*Only a few actually.

Â*Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

Â* and the ecosystems we are destroying.

Â*The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

Â*You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

Â*The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

I cannot prove evidence was presented not.

i didn't know we were doing presence this year

For the holidays.

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

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

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 8:23:34 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"%" wrote in message
...
On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
And the world was perfectly fine back then.

There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
high
as they are now.

Why does man have to be there?

Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
none
too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere
even near as high
have the changes happened so quickly.

You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
it did in the past. And that we would manage also. You do
know how much CO2
is required to kill you, right?

The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

or at least likely so,

More bull****.

and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get
started:
http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

but we are in a great extinction

Bull****.

There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

and it may end up including humans.

No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not
lead to a great extinction.

Bull****.

We rely on many other species

Only a few actually.

Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

and the ecosystems we are destroying.

The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

Just did.

First you must figure out what evidence is.

I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even born.

You presented none above.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


Happy to:

http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/

Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change

Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.

Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.

Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.

No need to hyperventilate, stupid.

reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence

That stuff you posted is no evidence that man has
destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

On May 7, 2021 at 9:54:27 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
:

On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


Happy to:

http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/

Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change

Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.

Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.

Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.

No need to hyperventilate, stupid.

reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence and prefer ignorance. That is your choice.

You responded by saying you will agree evidence. Why do you keep saying it.
OK, you like ignorance. Whatever.

If you find a counter from an internationally recognized scientific group
please share.

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

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

On May 7, 2021 at 10:08:47 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 8:23:34 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"%" wrote in message
...
On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported man
made climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how much
of the
change we have seen is man made. It wasn=E2=80=99t
that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

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

It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to be
more CO2 in the air.
And the world was perfectly fine back then.

There has been no time in the history of man when the
CO2 levels were as
high
as they are now.

Why does man have to be there?

Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
none
too happy about man creating the current mass extinction
we are in.

Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is not
well understood
because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere
even near as high
have the changes happened so quickly.

You are working to push your intuition, based on faith, over
the science.

No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels just
fine because
it did in the past. And that we would manage also. You do
know how much CO2
is required to kill you, right?

The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

or at least likely so,

More bull****.

and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get
started:
http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

but we are in a great extinction

Bull****.

There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

and it may end up including humans.

No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not
lead to a great extinction.

Bull****.

We rely on many other species

Only a few actually.

Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

and the ecosystems we are destroying.

The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

Just did.

First you must figure out what evidence is.

I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even born.

You presented none above.

You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say in
favor of your own ignorance.

Whatever. You like ignorance. Enjoy.

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

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

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 9:54:27 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
:

On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence
You presented no evidence what so ever.
Happy to:
http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/
Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change
Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.
Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.
Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.
No need to hyperventilate, stupid.
reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence and prefer ignorance. That is your choice.

You responded by saying you will agree evidence.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

Why do you keep saying it.

Saying what ?

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:08:47 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 8:23:34 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"%" wrote in message
...
On 2021-05-07 7:13 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:17:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 5:01:01 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:36:54 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:41:40 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 28, 2021 at 11:34:41 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:46:21 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 22, 2021 at 11:21:47 AM MST, ""Commander
Kinsey"" wrote
:

And that=E2=80=99s just as true of purported
man made climate change.

Its obvious that climate does change,
that=E2=80=99s obvious from
the ice ages etc, but its much less clear how
much of the
change we have seen is man made. It
wasn=E2=80=99t that long ago
that most scientists were hyperventilating
about global cooling.

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

It's bloody obvious to me. We know there used to
be more CO2 in the air.
And the world was perfectly fine back then.

There has been no time in the history of man when
the CO2 levels were as
high
as they are now.

Why does man have to be there?

Just a personal preference I prefer to not have man go
extinct... and am
none
too happy about man creating the current mass
extinction we are in.

Surely you know that's not what I meant.

Yes, you were trying to pretend that man's influence is
not well understood
because in the past there were other times of high CO2,
though there were
other reasons and none of the times it has been anywhere
even near as high
have the changes happened so quickly.

You are working to push your intuition, based on faith,
over the science.

No, I was pointing out the earth survives high CO2 levels
just fine because
it did in the past. And that we would manage also. You do
know how much CO2
is required to kill you, right?

The earth will survive the harm we are causing...

Its far from clear that we are actually doing great harm at
all, particularly when compared with what the ice ages did.

We are in a great extinction,

Bull**** we are.

or at least likely so,

More bull****.

and seeing the impacts now.

More bull****.

If you want to learn more about it this is a good site to get
started:
http://climate.nasa.gov

More bull****. Its just the spewing of the MMGCC cult.

but we are in a great extinction

Bull****.

There is some debate -- but it seems likely.

Bull****.

and it may end up including humans.

No chance. We even survived the ice ages.

The ice ages man made it through (the most recent one) did not
lead to a great extinction.

Bull****.

We rely on many other species

Only a few actually.

Quite a few... give how they rely on each other. And we benefit
from many more.

More bull****.

and the ecosystems we are destroying.

The ice ages destroyed far more and we survived that fine.

You are trying to equate all of the ice ages.

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.

But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.

You reject evidence

You presented no evidence what so ever.


can you prove no evidence was presented

Just did.

First you must figure out what evidence is.

I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even born.

You presented none above.

You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say

I actually rub your troll nose in the fact that they say nothing about
whether man has destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

reams of your lying troll**** flushed where it belongs

On May 7, 2021 at 10:52:56 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

First you must figure out what evidence is.

I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even born.

You presented none above.

You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say

I actually rub your troll nose in the fact that they say nothing about
whether man has destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

reams of your lying troll**** flushed where it belongs

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say in
favor of your own ignorance.

Whatever. You like ignorance. Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

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

On May 7, 2021 at 10:50:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 9:54:27 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
:

On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence
You presented no evidence what so ever.
Happy to:
http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/
Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change
Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.
Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.
Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.
No need to hyperventilate, stupid.
reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence and prefer ignorance. That is your choice.

You responded by saying you will agree evidence.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

Why do you keep saying it.

Saying what ?

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded by saying you will agree evidence. Why do you keep saying it.
OK, you like ignorance. Whatever.

If you find a counter from an internationally recognized scientific group
please share.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

First you must figure out what evidence is.
I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even
born.
You presented none above.
You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say

I actually rub your troll nose in the fact that they say nothing about
whether man has destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

reams of your lying troll**** flushed where it belongs

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 10:50:45 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 9:54:27 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
:

On May 7, 2021 at 8:22:49 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 2021 at 7:13:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Nope, rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that they
destroyed far more ecosystems than man has done.

The one man made it through was not a big one.
But they destroyed far more ecosystems than man ever has.
You reject evidence
You presented no evidence what so ever.
Happy to:
http://climate.nasa.gov
https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/climate-change/
https://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
https://climatecrocks.com/
https://insideclimatenews.org/
https://www.climatecentral.org/
https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change#tab=tab_1
https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features
https://skepticalscience.com/
https://whistleblower.org/climate-science-watch/
https://grist.org/
https://climatenexus.org/
https://www.dailyclimate.org/
https://www.theclimategroup.org/
https://www.realclimate.org/
Thats no evidence that man has destroyed
more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

We can also look at peer reviewed articles:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change
Reviewed by other MMGCC cult members. Pass.

Lots more.
Yep, endless **** spewed by the MMGCC cult.
Yes, agriculture likely did have some effect on
world climate, but we survived that fine anyway.
No need to hyperventilate, stupid.
reams of your MMGCC **** flushed where it belongs

As I said, you reject evidence and prefer ignorance. That is your
choice.

You responded by saying you will agree evidence.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

Why do you keep saying it.

Saying what ?

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

On May 8, 2021 at 12:27:39 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You responded by saying you will agree evidence. Why do you keep saying it.
OK, you like ignorance. Whatever.

If you find a counter from an internationally recognized scientific group
please share.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

On May 8, 2021 at 12:26:55 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

First you must figure out what evidence is.
I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even
born.
You presented none above.
You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say

I actually rub your troll nose in the fact that they say nothing about
whether man has destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

reams of your lying troll**** flushed where it belongs

What you snipped:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations say in
favor of your own ignorance.

Whatever. You like ignorance. Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:43:17 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

I don't write Monty Python scripts. You miss it, you miss it. That seems
to be par for British humor. Take a mildly amusing gag and beat it to
death until the dumbest Scot finally gets the joke.

ROTFLOL What a driveling ASSHOLE you are, lowbrowwoman! Is there a name for
that kind of disorder you are suffering from?

On Sat, 08 May 2021 02:57:02 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:

Happy to:

Doing again what you can do best, senile asshole, i.e. sucking off greedily
every single unwashed troll that happens to come running along? LOL

On Sat, 08 May 2021 07:29:37 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


What you snipped:

How is it that EVERY troll cock is so IRRESISTIBLE to you, **** the Git? You
just can NEVER get enough of it! LMAO

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 2021 at 12:27:39 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On May 8, 2021 at 12:26:55 AM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

First you must figure out what evidence is.
I have known that for most of my life, since before you were even
born.
You presented none above.
You reject what internationally recognized scientific organizations
say

I actually rub your troll nose in the fact that they say nothing about
whether man has destroyed more ecosystems than the ice ages did.

reams of your lying troll**** flushed where it belongs

On Sat, 8 May 2021 19:21:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Sat, 8 May 2021 19:22:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

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

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:40:43 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:34:37 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:28:34 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:24:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

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

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

man-made global climate change,

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

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

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

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can,
as
they're the weaker ones.

In fact there isnt any evidence that it does kill of the weaker ones.

The Spanish Flu didn't, in fact it killed off the stronger ones
because their much better immune system grossly over reacted
and it was the cytokine storm that killed them very quickly.

Grossly overreacting was therefore a trait that needed removing for
the
next generation.

Nope because it means they do much better with the
non pandemic infections and don't have to bother to
wash their hands all the time and can get away with
doing what is more convenient like not throwing
away food that has had a fly walk on it etc etc etc.

Having a trait that makes you better at 9 things but worse at another,
getting you killed, is not a good trait to have.

Depends on the death rate.

In fact we evolved like that with kids sure that nothing can kill them
and in fact that works fine.

What kids are you referring to?

Late teenagers. That why they have always been the cannon fodder in wars.

Well there's no point sending overweight old men is there? Best to use the fit lads to kill.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:40:43 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:34:37 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:28:34 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:24:27 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

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

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

man-made global climate change,

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

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

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

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it
can,
as
they're the weaker ones.

In fact there isnt any evidence that it does kill of the weaker
ones.

The Spanish Flu didn't, in fact it killed off the stronger ones
because their much better immune system grossly over reacted
and it was the cytokine storm that killed them very quickly.

Grossly overreacting was therefore a trait that needed removing for
the
next generation.

Nope because it means they do much better with the
non pandemic infections and don't have to bother to
wash their hands all the time and can get away with
doing what is more convenient like not throwing
away food that has had a fly walk on it etc etc etc.

Having a trait that makes you better at 9 things but worse at another,
getting you killed, is not a good trait to have.

Depends on the death rate.

In fact we evolved like that with kids sure that nothing can kill them
and in fact that works fine.

What kids are you referring to?

Late teenagers. That's why they have always been the cannon fodder in
wars.

Well there's no point sending overweight old men is there?

That's not the alternative.

Best to use the fit lads to kill.

But those with now enough sense to realise that
they arent immortal arent any use as cannon fodder.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:24 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 29, 2021 at 12:35:20 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:47:48 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:46:00 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it can, as
they're the weaker ones.

As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? Set an example?

I am, by not wearing a mask.

Go get the disease.

It's too unlikely to worry about, and if I got it, chances are I wouldn't
even get symptoms. What a fuss about nothing. The whole world has turned
into a bunchy of pathetic pansies. Except locally, about 80-90% of people I
see are not bothering with masks or social distancing, and haven't for the
whole year.

You says turned into as if this is the first pandemic.

I don't remember the world ever overreacting before.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:55 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 29, 2021 at 12:33:48 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

Language is weird. Heck, how do you think people generally pronounce the
word
"can't".

Without the t. So it sounds more like "can".

https://youtu.be/6bszZZlvj4E

Just weird.

No. There are two differences for anyone who speaks English properly
(as in
everyone outside the US). It's "cann" or "carnt". Not "cayan" or
"cayant".

These are UK samples: https://youtu.be/dGnBi6giZw0

is this the line for the free soup

Well Snit is a radical left winger, so yes, everything is magically free.

How duos figure thongs would be magically free? Do you think they are in
Nordic countries?

All left wingers want something for nothing. That money from the government, they don't just print it, they have to steal it from somebody. Somebody who wishes you rather didn't have their cash.

And you can get the thong for free if you model it.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:50:04 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:41:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:35:17 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:28:26 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:38:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free..

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

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

man-made global climate change,

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

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

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

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it
can,
as
they're the weaker ones.

As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer?

And he is significantly medically ****ed.

But doesnt reproduce.

Exactly, I would only reproduce if I was fit, healthy, rich, and good
looking. Imagine the next generation if everyone did that.

Didnt work with Phil the Greek, look at the useless ****s he produced.

That is not good looking.

Most women would disagree with you about that.

********. You don't get actors looking that ugly.

More bull**** with all of Mel Gibson, Trevor Howard etc etc etc.

Sometimes in a story you need an ugly character.

And why the hell do you think Phil was better looking than Gibson? They're both equally dull.

Unless they're playing bad guys.

And the wife has to be all those things too obviously.

Nope, it doesnt work like that. Liz's mum was never anything special.

If both are special, the kids will be special.

More mindless bull**** with Maggie Thatcher and Dennis.

I'm not familiar with Dennis or their kids.

If one is special, then the kids have a 50% chance.

More mindless bull****.

It's called genetics. You have to take them from your father or mother.

Set an example?

He does, but by streaking, quite literally.

How does that kill anyone?

That bit wasnt about killing anyone, although
in your case likely some died laughing or atleast
crashed the car or the motorbike etc.

Yes, a distraction at seeing my sexy body.

Laughing at your microdick, actually.

It's above the national average.

Bull**** it is, we have the videos of you streaking.

I have never posted a video of it erect.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:24 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2021 at 12:35:20 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 19:47:48 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 25, 2021 at 11:46:00 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it
can, as
they're the weaker ones.

As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer? Set an
example?

I am, by not wearing a mask.

Go get the disease.

It's too unlikely to worry about, and if I got it, chances are I
wouldn't
even get symptoms. What a fuss about nothing. The whole world has
turned
into a bunchy of pathetic pansies. Except locally, about 80-90% of
people I
see are not bothering with masks or social distancing, and haven't for
the
whole year.

You says turned into as if this is the first pandemic.

I don't remember the world ever overreacting before.

That's because you weren't around when the spanish flu happened.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:33:55 +0100, Snit
wrote:

On Apr 29, 2021 at 12:33:48 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

Language is weird. Heck, how do you think people generally
pronounce the
word
"can't".

Without the t. So it sounds more like "can".

https://youtu.be/6bszZZlvj4E

Just weird.

No. There are two differences for anyone who speaks English
properly
(as in
everyone outside the US). It's "cann" or "carnt". Not "cayan" or
"cayant".

These are UK samples: https://youtu.be/dGnBi6giZw0

is this the line for the free soup

Well Snit is a radical left winger, so yes, everything is magically
free.

How duos figure thongs would be magically free? Do you think they are in
Nordic countries?

All left wingers want something for nothing.

Not all of them. Some of them are bleeding heart ******s
who believe that the useless and unemployables should be
given handouts so they can live reasonable lives.

That money from the government, they don't just print it, they have to
steal it from somebody.

It isnt stealing, its collecting it from most to do what
the voters have decided that they want govt to do,
particularly with stuff like welfare instead of leaving
that to charity etc which has its own downsides.

Somebody who wishes you rather didn't have their cash.

And you can get the thong for free if you model it.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:50:04 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 21:41:46 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:35:17 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 19:28:26 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 2021 at 10:38:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 20:28:16 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:09:40 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 16, 2021 at 11:00:16 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey""
wrote
:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:44:18 +0100, Snit

wrote:

On Apr 15, 2021 at 7:14:23 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
:

On 04/15/2021 12:02 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:12:00 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists are liberal because they want funding for free.

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

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

man-made global climate change,

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

research on reduction of abortions,

That's not science, that's morals.

and in some cases even things like evolution.

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

Nope, because it mostly kills those way past reproducing.

Irrelevant if it kills those or not. And they can hide indoors.

The point is we should let it kill off any younger folk that it
can,
as
they're the weaker ones.

As you call for these deaths wby don't you volunteer?

And he is significantly medically ****ed.

But doesnt reproduce.

Exactly, I would only reproduce if I was fit, healthy, rich, and
good
looking. Imagine the next generation if everyone did that.

Didnt work with Phil the Greek, look at the useless ****s he
produced.

That is not good looking.

Most women would disagree with you about that.

********. You don't get actors looking that ugly.

More bull**** with all of Mel Gibson, Trevor Howard etc etc etc.

Sometimes in a story you need an ugly character.

And why the hell do you think Phil was better looking than Gibson?
They're both equally dull.

Phil wasnt say at the end of the war.

Who do you claim is good looking ?

Will doesnt look too bad cept for the premature baldness.

Unless they're playing bad guys.

And the wife has to be all those things too obviously.

Nope, it doesnt work like that. Liz's mum was never anything special.

If both are special, the kids will be special.

More mindless bull**** with Maggie Thatcher and Dennis.

I'm not familiar with Dennis or their kids.

There only son is completely useless.

If one is special, then the kids have a 50% chance.

More mindless bull****.

It's called genetics. You have to take them from your father or mother.

There is a hell of a lot of randomness involved.

You only have to look at the wide variety
of kids some parents have to see that.

Set an example?

He does, but by streaking, quite literally.

How does that kill anyone?

That bit wasnt about killing anyone, although
in your case likely some died laughing or atleast
crashed the car or the motorbike etc.

Yes, a distraction at seeing my sexy body.

Laughing at your microdick, actually.

It's above the national average.

Bull**** it is, we have the videos of you streaking.

I have never posted a video of it erect.

But we have the video anyway.

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:43:17 -0600, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...



I don't write Monty Python scripts. You miss it, you miss it. That seems
to be par for British humor. Take a mildly amusing gag and beat it to
death until the dumbest Scot finally gets the joke.


Hey, I resemble that remark!

--
Tekkie

On Sun, 9 May 2021 05:18:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
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 Sun, 9 May 2021 05:08:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
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 Sun, 9 May 2021 05:12:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
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 Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:32:06 +0100, Snit wrote:

On Apr 29, 2021 at 12:37:25 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
:

As in Herbert Marcuse? I had a kid's book that was in an Indian setting.
The medicine man was named Herb Gatherer but it took a while for my
epiphany that his first name wasn't Herbert.

I can't remember the title but I'm certain it would appall the modern
generation with its stereotyping and cultural appropriation. I thought
it was pretty neat and read it several times.

Stereotypes get there for a reason.

Such as the stereotypes of libertarians?

Ambiguous sentence. Do you mean the stereotype people have of them, or the
ones Libertarians have of others?

The ones people have of Libertarians... though I suppose it works both ways.

Those aren't stereotypes, those are misnomers.

A stereotype is usually accurate, for example "Irish are stupid". I know many Irish folk, and only one is clever.

--
Sent from my iPhone, this spam courtesy of Apple incorporated.