Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

Swan wrote:
You would be smarter if you read less BS

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
You would be smarter if you read less BS

Yeah, he can be a little clunky, and it was hard to understand at parts (thanks IBM!).

I'm reading his latest book, and it's... well, it's different. I'm not sure I quite get it, but I'm only about a 1/4 through. I'm still in the reflections part, but it doesn't seem to have a theme.

I'll keep reading.

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severely damaged quoting...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.

Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.

How do you know? Were you there?

Your ignorance is perfect

Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter

Into the Night wrote:
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.

Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times

Just like your usual pattern. When you have no argument you call people psychos and start throwing insults.

You refuse to define 'climate change', making your arguments using this buzzword void.
You obviously have no idea how GPS or other navigation systems work.
You describe stuff that you believe occurred in history accurately as if you were there, when we both know you were not.

You call this religion of yours 'science'.

Then you try to blame YOUR problems on someone else.

When you can't get away with that, you start throwing insults and throwing the word psycho around.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Attempting to prove any religion True or False is fundamentalism.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that your religion is not science. You don't know what happened in the past. Everything you are describing is mere speculation. You weren't there.

Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severely damaged quoting...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.

Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.

How do you know? Were you there?

Your ignorance is perfect

Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter

Into the Night wrote:
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.

Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times

Just like your usual pattern. When you have no argument you call people psychos and start throwing insults.

You refuse to define 'climate change', making your arguments using this buzzword void.
You obviously have no idea how GPS or other navigation systems work.
You describe stuff that you believe occurred in history accurately as if you were there, when we both know you were not.

You call this religion of yours 'science'.

Then you try to blame YOUR problems on someone else.

When you can't get away with that, you start throwing insults and throwing the word psycho around.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Attempting to prove any religion True or False is fundamentalism.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that your religion is not science. You don't know what happened in the past. Everything you are describing is mere speculation. You weren't there.

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

sealover wrote:
If you aren't interested in discussing the theme of the thread, fine.

Let's talk about the WORST PRESIDENT EVER in the history of the USA.

sealover wrote:
Let's talk about someone whose STUPIDITY and INCOMPETENCE have already done lasting damage.

sealover wrote:
Let's talk about someone whose MENTAL ILLNESS makes him a danger to society.

sealover wrote:
Is ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe the little sore loser's claim that he actually "won" in a "landslide"?

sealover wrote:
I guess if someone is STUPID enough to believe that, then it would be consistent with being TOO STUPID to acknowledge that CLIMATE CHANGE is wreaking havoc on the capacity of the earth to sustain us.

sealover wrote:
I can't stop anyone from trolling my threads.

sealover wrote:
But if you refuse to respect the theme of the thread, I'll make a point to remind you that the PATHETIC ORANGE MAN is a LOSER.

sealover wrote:
An incredibly STUPID loser at that.

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election. DUH!

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats. You can't lose what never took place.

sealover wrote:
If you aren't interested in discussing the theme of the thread, fine.

Let's talk about the WORST PRESIDENT EVER in the history of the USA.

In my book that would be an even tie between Jackson and FDR.
Pres. Jackson founded the Democrat party. He also funded himself and his buddies by stealing land from the indians, killing their braves, and sending their elderly, women, and children on a long march without supplies to 'reservations'. It became known as the Trail of Tears, still remembered to this day, and so are the reservations.

Pres. Franklin Roosevelt created the massive welfare system, a system that takes money by force (taxes) from productive people and gives it to unproductive people. It is designed to replace charity (voluntarily helping those in need). It is communism. That system is with us today. The Constitution never gave him or Congress any such authority to create such communism. He also outlawed the ownership of gold, stealing it all, and replacing it with fiat currency. That was when Fort Knox was built, to house all that stolen gold. After devaluation after devaluation, any reference to a gold standard was finally officially abandoned in 1964 by Nixon. FDR also caused an economic downturn to turn into a depression to last well into the early 50's; the effects of which are still around today.

sealover wrote:
Let's talk about someone whose STUPIDITY and INCOMPETENCE have already done lasting damage.

I just did. It lies squarely with the Democrat party.

sealover wrote:
Let's talk about someone whose MENTAL ILLNESS makes him a danger to society.

Psychoquackery.

Let's talk about a danger to society.

Communism (a form of socialism), which is government ownership of markets. Theft by taking of property.
Fascism (a form of socialism), which is government manipulation of markets. Theft by regulations and market manipulation.
Slavery (a form of socialism), which is ownership of people for the purpose of stealing their labor.

ALL are theft of wealth. ALL have started wars. It is these that the Democrats want.

sealover wrote:
Is ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe the little sore loser's claim that he actually "won" in a "landslide"?

You cannot win what never took place.

sealover wrote:
I guess if someone is STUPID enough to believe that, then it would be consistent with being TOO STUPID to acknowledge that CLIMATE CHANGE is wreaking havoc on the capacity of the earth to sustain us.

Define 'climate change'. So far you have never done so.

sealover wrote:
I can't stop anyone from trolling my threads.

Not even you.

sealover wrote:
But if you refuse to respect the theme of the thread, I'll make a point to remind you that the PATHETIC ORANGE MAN is a LOSER.

You can't lose what never took place.

sealover wrote:
An incredibly STUPID loser at that.

Jealousy. Trump is a successful real estate developer. He is rich because of that service he provides to people voluntarily that people want to take advantage of voluntarily. You know...capitalism.

Something apparently quite foreign to you. Also why you are not rich (unless you stole it).

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election. DUH!

You can't lose what never took place.

The evidence that the election faulted cannot be denied:
* seven States never chose their electors.
* trucks carrying ballots intercepted while trying to enter Canada.
* security footage at election centers of workers filling out ballots, running them through the machine multiple times, pulling out cases of ballots after hours, ejecting observers and counting unobserved after hours, etc.
* hundreds of affidavits filed by witnesses, both Republican and Democrat, of election fraud in counting centers. These are signed and notarized documents, under penalty of perjury.
* counts changing after hours that are beyond any reasonable probability.
* changing election laws after the fact.
* changing election laws in an unconstitutional manner.
* demonstrated weaknesses in the software used in the counting machines, including the ability to hack them, program them to weight counts, etc.
* greater dependency on mass mail in ballots, many times unconstitutionally, and which have no tracking of authenticity.
* counting the same fake ballots again to 'confirm' the count.
* elections results called by those with no authority to call them, including newspapers, executive branches of governments, etc.
* Congress choosing electors for a State (they have no authority to do this).

I could go on, but these are all public record. They are history. They cannot be denied. The election of 2020 faulted. Biden was never elected. He was installed as part of a silent coup by Democrats. The United States has fallen. Democrats discard the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various States. What was the federal government has been turned into an oligarchy. Some parts still function, but the leadership is an oligarchy.

The independent States of America are now each deciding their futures, whether to ally with The Oligarchy, remain independent, or attempt to form a union under some kind of constitution.

Civil war is a very real possibility now. The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game.

There will come a time when such tyranny is defeated. At what cost remains to be seen.

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

He is a successful businessman. He knows what it takes to run a business.
He has shown success after success as a president, despite the utter lack of support and even hate mongering from Democrats.

* He expanded the wall along the borders of Mexico, despite Democrat efforts to kill it.
* He expanded oil and coal production by getting government out of the way, making the United States a net exporter of oil and lowering gas prices.
* He brought many businesses back to the U.S. by getting government out of the way and lowering corporate taxes.
* He lowered income taxes across the board (everyone, not just the rich), and simplified the tax forms.
* He successfully renegotiated the NAFTA treaty to better favor the U.S.
* He successfully got NATO to pay it's bills.
* He offered the assistance of federal troops to contain the violence plaguing U.S. cities being caused by Antifa and BLM, both funded and supported by Democrats.
* He responded to the Covid virus by successfully negotiating with several companies to provide hospital equipment as needed, and got government out of the way to develop vaccines in record time.
* He did NOT shut down the economy. There was no need to. DEMOCRATS shut down the economy and threw it into a depression that has lasted years. Many businesses were destroyed in that depression.
* He successfully exposed the bias in media sources such as CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and L.A. Times, and numerous other sources.
* He started NO wars.
* He stands for and supports the Constitution of the United States, and for each of the State constitutions.
* He pulled the teeth of the Obamacare law, an unconstitutional law based on communism and fascism.

Yeah. I'll happily vote for the Trump again.

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

He is a successful businessman. He knows what it takes to run a business.
He has shown success after success as a president, despite the utter lack of support and even hate mongering from Democrats.

* He expanded the wall along the borders of Mexico, despite Democrat efforts to kill it.
* He expanded oil and coal production by getting government out of the way, making the United States a net exporter of oil and lowering gas prices.
* He brought many businesses back to the U.S. by getting government out of the way and lowering corporate taxes.
* He lowered income taxes across the board (everyone, not just the rich), and simplified the tax forms.
* He successfully renegotiated the NAFTA treaty to better favor the U.S.
* He successfully got NATO to pay it's bills.
* He offered the assistance of federal troops to contain the violence plaguing U.S. cities being caused by Antifa and BLM, both funded and supported by Democrats.
* He responded to the Covid virus by successfully negotiating with several companies to provide hospital equipment as needed, and got government out of the way to develop vaccines in record time.
* He did NOT shut down the economy. There was no need to. DEMOCRATS shut down the economy and threw it into a depression that has lasted years. Many businesses were destroyed in that depression.
* He successfully exposed the bias in media sources such as CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and L.A. Times, and numerous other sources.
* He started NO wars.
* He stands for and supports the Constitution of the United States, and for each of the State constitutions.
* He pulled the teeth of the Obamacare law, an unconstitutional law based on communism and fascism.

Yeah. I'll happily vote for the Trump again.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

He is a successful businessman. He knows what it takes to run a business.
He has shown success after success as a president, despite the utter lack of support and even hate mongering from Democrats.

* He expanded the wall along the borders of Mexico, despite Democrat efforts to kill it.
* He expanded oil and coal production by getting government out of the way, making the United States a net exporter of oil and lowering gas prices.
* He brought many businesses back to the U.S. by getting government out of the way and lowering corporate taxes.
* He lowered income taxes across the board (everyone, not just the rich), and simplified the tax forms.
* He successfully renegotiated the NAFTA treaty to better favor the U.S.
* He successfully got NATO to pay it's bills.
* He offered the assistance of federal troops to contain the violence plaguing U.S. cities being caused by Antifa and BLM, both funded and supported by Democrats.
* He responded to the Covid virus by successfully negotiating with several companies to provide hospital equipment as needed, and got government out of the way to develop vaccines in record time.
* He did NOT shut down the economy. There was no need to. DEMOCRATS shut down the economy and threw it into a depression that has lasted years. Many businesses were destroyed in that depression.
* He successfully exposed the bias in media sources such as CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and L.A. Times, and numerous other sources.
* He started NO wars.
* He stands for and supports the Constitution of the United States, and for each of the State constitutions.
* He pulled the teeth of the Obamacare law, an unconstitutional law based on communism and fascism.

Yeah. I'll happily vote for the Trump again.

Trump would have been a great president. He had all the right ideas on the direction this country should be taking. Unfortunately, he like attention too much. A media-whore, drama-queen. Most of what he considered humor, was over the liberal's heads, and taken seriously. Rather than admit they were taken in, they just ran with it, politically. The Russia investigation came from an off-the-cuff comment during a campaign rally. Doubt Putin, or any Russians were listening in, or took it seriously. When Trump ask Russia to help find Hilary's missing emails.

Another 4 years of Trump, would be another mostly wasted 4 years. Trump managed to get quite a bit done, but only a fraction of what was need, or what could have been accomplished, if he wasn't joking around, pissing people off.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
Donald Trump LOST the election.

Honestly, sealover, when it comes to DT, he's an ****. On the other hand, he's always been one and, for the most part, admitted he was one. It's not like we don't know that.

I'm not worried about DT. I'm worried about the people who vote for him.

I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

He is a successful businessman. He knows what it takes to run a business.
He has shown success after success as a president, despite the utter lack of support and even hate mongering from Democrats.

* He expanded the wall along the borders of Mexico, despite Democrat efforts to kill it.
* He expanded oil and coal production by getting government out of the way, making the United States a net exporter of oil and lowering gas prices.
* He brought many businesses back to the U.S. by getting government out of the way and lowering corporate taxes.
* He lowered income taxes across the board (everyone, not just the rich), and simplified the tax forms.
* He successfully renegotiated the NAFTA treaty to better favor the U.S.
* He successfully got NATO to pay it's bills.
* He offered the assistance of federal troops to contain the violence plaguing U.S. cities being caused by Antifa and BLM, both funded and supported by Democrats.
* He responded to the Covid virus by successfully negotiating with several companies to provide hospital equipment as needed, and got government out of the way to develop vaccines in record time.
* He did NOT shut down the economy. There was no need to. DEMOCRATS shut down the economy and threw it into a depression that has lasted years. Many businesses were destroyed in that depression.
* He successfully exposed the bias in media sources such as CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the Associated Press, the New York Times, and L.A. Times, and numerous other sources.
* He started NO wars.
* He stands for and supports the Constitution of the United States, and for each of the State constitutions.
* He pulled the teeth of the Obamacare law, an unconstitutional law based on communism and fascism.

Yeah. I'll happily vote for the Trump again.

Trump would have been a great president. He had all the right ideas on the direction this country should be taking. Unfortunately, he like attention too much. A media-whore, drama-queen. Most of what he considered humor, was over the liberal's heads, and taken seriously. Rather than admit they were taken in, they just ran with it, politically. The Russia investigation came from an off-the-cuff comment during a campaign rally. Doubt Putin, or any Russians were listening in, or took it seriously. When Trump ask Russia to help find Hilary's missing emails.

Another 4 years of Trump, would be another mostly wasted 4 years. Trump managed to get quite a bit done, but only a fraction of what was need, or what could have been accomplished, if he wasn't joking around, pissing people off.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...fixing severely damaged quoting...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
None. You have to define 'climate change' and 'climate change model' first.
How do you know it's 'overdue'? It doesn't have a fixed schedule.

Wrong again Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times or every 260,000 years — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago we are currently overdue which may be why magnetic North is currently wandering.

How do you know? Were you there?

Your ignorance is perfect

Now stop making yourself look ignorant by telling me what I have to do, because I do not answer to a clown like you, or anyone for that matter

Into the Night wrote:
So you can't define 'climate change'. I already knew that. Buzzword fallacy then.

Look kid, it does not matter how sincere your belief is that if I was not there then it did not happen is, because this belief is rooted in your psychosis and inability to deal with why your Mother locked you in the closet so many times

Just like your usual pattern. When you have no argument you call people psychos and start throwing insults.

You refuse to define 'climate change', making your arguments using this buzzword void.
You obviously have no idea how GPS or other navigation systems work.
You describe stuff that you believe occurred in history accurately as if you were there, when we both know you were not.

You call this religion of yours 'science'.

Then you try to blame YOUR problems on someone else.

When you can't get away with that, you start throwing insults and throwing the word psycho around.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.
Attempting to prove any religion True or False is fundamentalism.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply pointing out that your religion is not science. You don't know what happened in the past. Everything you are describing is mere speculation. You weren't there.

LOL your schizzo argument is that if you did not see it happen that it is not real, and that anyone who disagrees that you determine reality has a competency issue.

So are you DOD, NSA, CIA or QVC? can't be FBI because even they are not this dumb, usually anyway.

130

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Into the Night wrote:
I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Except that you call a schizzo a swan. Why is that?

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

GretaGroupie wrote:
Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

GretaGroupie wrote:
After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I still support Trump and would still vote for him, should he run for an office.

Personally, I'm tired of all these old white dinosaurs. Seems like they're just making the world meaner and greedier.

GretaGroupie wrote:
My first pick would be a black, lesbian, single mom who holds down 3 jobs just to make ends meet... she'd know how to keep it real!

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

GretaGroupie wrote:Personally, I'm tired of all these old white dinosaurs.

GretaGroupie wrote:Seems like they're just making the world meaner and greedier.

GretaGroupie wrote:My first pick would be a black, lesbian, single mom who holds down 3 jobs just to make ends meet... she'd know how to keep it real!

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

IBdaMann wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:Personally, I'm all these old white dinosaurs.

Is that because they're just making the world meaner and greedier.

GretaGroupie wrote:My first black, lesbian, single mom holds down 3 jobs just to make ends meet... she'd know how to define "climate change" better than you can

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

You are not arguing. You are insulting people. A fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

Random phrase. Ignored.

No argument presented.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

You are not arguing. You are insulting people. A fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

Random phrase. Ignored.

No argument presented.

Only a complete idiot could respond then say that they ignored.............

You need medical help, blink twice if they are holding you captive

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

You are not arguing. You are insulting people. A fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

Random phrase. Ignored.

No argument presented.

Only a complete idiot could respond then say that they ignored.............

You need medical help, blink twice if they are holding you captive

Insult fallacies. Quackery. No argument presented.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

You are not arguing. You are insulting people. A fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

Random phrase. Ignored.

No argument presented.

Only a complete idiot could respond then say that they ignored.............

You need medical help, blink twice if they are holding you captive

Insult fallacies. Quackery. No argument presented.

Hey idiot, while I am not sure that your feeble mind can understand, but my insults are real and not fallacies. So did your Mom ever give you back your crayons?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

sealover wrote:
"GretaGroupie" is not here to ask questions about carbon sequestration.

Well, I'm here because i admire Greta sooo much, and I'm trying to get the hang of all this. I don't understand all the terms and math, so I'm just trying to provide some polite chit-chat so I can learn more.

Carbon seaquestration: putting carbon back in the sea.

After thought: have you ever noticed how most threads here sooner or later just become a bunch of name calling? I may not always be on topic, but at least I'm not rude.

I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Cliche fallacy. Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

I "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

You are not arguing. You are insulting people. A fallacy.

Swan wrote:
Hasn't changed an iota since Twain's day, Mark must have envisioned the NSA

Random phrase. Ignored.

No argument presented.

Only a complete idiot could respond then say that they ignored.............

You need medical help, blink twice if they are holding you captive

Insult fallacies. Quackery. No argument presented.

Hey idiot, while I am not sure that your feeble mind can understand, but my insults are real and not fallacies. So did your Mom ever give you back your crayons?

Insult fallacies. Denial of logic. No argument presented.

Swan wrote:
I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

sealover wrote:
Oops! I must be on the wrong thread.

IBdaMann wrote:
Profit motive and sex are what drive all the good things in this world.

Into the Night wrote:
You noticed that too? I have found your posts to be humorous and entertaining. You certainly haven't been rude to anyone.

Into the Night wrote:
Let's look at greed first.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
I simply use the principle of Occam's razor and call a schizzo a schizzo. Life is simpler that way

Swan! Why would you ever use someone else's razor? It's so unsanitary. Live a little, splurge, and buy your own dam razors.

[note to self: thank goodness Swan wasn't around during the AIDS era - poor dear would have never made it]

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You noticed that too? I have found your posts to be humorous and entertaining. You certainly haven't been rude to anyone.

Thank you, ITN. And I have found you to be polite, informative and more than generous in putting up with my ignorance.

I am sure, over time, with you help, I will learn more and be less burdensome.

Swan wrote:
Only a moron can learn from an imbecile, or is that imbecile can learn from a moron