Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems

GretaGroupie wrote:

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

Swan, don't be silly. Morons are way smarter than imbeciles!

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:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Swan wrote:
But are all Mormons morons?

Into the Night wrote:Remember, there are really no dumb questions.

Swan wrote:
Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Remember, there are really no dumb questions.

Thank you ITN, you are truly a gentleman of gentlemen.

But about that dumb question thing, would I be correct in assuming you've never worked in a truckstop diner ("Oh miss, how much is the $5 hamburger special?".... groan).

GretaGroupie wrote:Swan, don't be silly. Morons are way smarter than imbeciles!

Swan wrote:
Sure I might be wrong, and would like to be just once so that I can know the feeling. It's not easy being muaaa

IBdaMann wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Sure I might be wrong, and would like to be just once so that I can know the feeling. It's not easy being muaaa

Swan, you are wrong, but you are magnificent, too.

I do work at a diner. Midnight to 6am at a truck stop diner.

Three highways criss-cross here so we busy with day, overnight and long haulers.

I've been here for about 2 years now and love it.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

GretaGroupie wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Remember, there are really no dumb questions.

Thank you ITN, you are truly a gentleman of gentlemen.

But about that dumb question thing, would I be correct in assuming you've never worked in a truckstop diner ("Oh miss, how much is the $5 hamburger special?".... groan).

GretaGroupie wrote:IBM, there is obviously something wrong with that chart, because you are not on it

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Sure I might be wrong, and would like to be just once so that I can know the feeling. It's not easy being muaaa

Swan, you are wrong, but you are magnificent, too.

I do work at a diner. Midnight to 6am at a truck stop diner.

Three highways criss-cross here so we busy with day, overnight and long haulers.

I've been here for about 2 years now and love it.

IBdaMann wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:IBM, there is obviously something wrong with that chart, because you are not on it

Good news! I took another look at the graphic and I actually am on there. I don't know how, but apparently I have the best seat in the house.

Swan wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Sure I might be wrong, and would like to be just once so that I can know the feeling. It's not easy being muaaa

Swan, you are wrong, but you are magnificent, too.

I do work at a diner. Midnight to 6am at a truck stop diner.

Three highways criss-cross here so we busy with day, overnight and long haulers.

I've been here for about 2 years now and love it.

Is the unibomber involved?

Cat got your tongue?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

Not Occam's Razor. Psychoquackery.

gfm7175 wrote:So you think you're "one of the gods", eh??

gfm7175 wrote:You atheists are SOOOOOOOOOO full of yourselves!

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

Not Occam's Razor. Psychoquackery.

You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

Not Occam's Razor. Psychoquackery.

You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:So you think you're "one of the gods", eh??

No, ... just under.

I don't claim to be the alpha and the omega, but I am firmly the beta and the psi.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:You atheists are SOOOOOOOOOO full of yourselves!

I think better wording would be "You atheists are so full of you (me)." Can you think of anyone better of which for atheists to be full?

But you're on the right track. Were you thinking of worshiping me? I get many such offers but I have to advise against it. I think it would be simpler for you to keep the religion you have and to focus on that. I'm really bad at keeping up with email and at answering prayers. The deity you have currently is one of the better ones and usually gets really good mileage. I hear your religion comes with an excellent retirement package so don't throw that away.

Just stick with what you have.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

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]

Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."

The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d'Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

CIAO

Occam's razor is not, however, science.

Occam's razor however is the principle that I use to simplify calling a schizzo, a schizzo because all the signs point to exactly that

Not Occam's Razor. Psychoquackery.

You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

Maybe he mistyped Denali?? Then again, that's still quite a bit NW from you... I suppose it wouldn't take all too much for you to fly there though.

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

Maybe he mistyped Denali?? Then again, that's still quite a bit NW from you... I suppose it wouldn't take all too much for you to fly there though.

Quite a distance actually (1540 miles), and over some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, through some of the worst weather (low clouds and rain almost continuously) along the route, which is an international route.

Nah. Denali isn't in my backyard at all. We do have Mt Rainier though (Mt Tahoma). It's some 14000 ft high. It's also an active volcano. Most of the time it just steams a bit if at all. It looks remarkably like an ice cream sundae on a clear day. All you need is the cherry on top.

Mt Rainier as seen from the water just off Discovery Park

This is looking across Elliot Bay (salt water). The bridge you see there is the West Seattle bridge, and the idle cranes from the Port of Seattle (now largely shut down) are in the center. Downtown Seattle is off to the left, out of frame and behind the bluff on the left side of this image.

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

Maybe he mistyped Denali?? Then again, that's still quite a bit NW from you... I suppose it wouldn't take all too much for you to fly there though.

Quite a distance actually (1540 miles), and over some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, through some of the worst weather (low clouds and rain almost continuously) along the route, which is an international route.

Nah. Denali isn't in my backyard at all. We do have Mt Rainier though (Mt Tahoma). It's some 14000 ft high. It's also an active volcano. Most of the time it just steams a bit if at all. It looks remarkably like an ice cream sundae on a clear day. All you need is the cherry on top.

Mt Rainier as seen from the water just off Discovery Park

This is looking across Elliot Bay (salt water). The bridge you see there is the West Seattle bridge, and the idle cranes from the Port of Seattle (now largely shut down) are in the center. Downtown Seattle is off to the left, out of frame and behind the bluff on the left side of this image.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

Maybe he mistyped Denali?? Then again, that's still quite a bit NW from you... I suppose it wouldn't take all too much for you to fly there though.

Quite a distance actually (1540 miles), and over some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, through some of the worst weather (low clouds and rain almost continuously) along the route, which is an international route.

Nah. Denali isn't in my backyard at all. We do have Mt Rainier though (Mt Tahoma). It's some 14000 ft high. It's also an active volcano. Most of the time it just steams a bit if at all. It looks remarkably like an ice cream sundae on a clear day. All you need is the cherry on top.

Mt Rainier as seen from the water just off Discovery Park

This is looking across Elliot Bay (salt water). The bridge you see there is the West Seattle bridge, and the idle cranes from the Port of Seattle (now largely shut down) are in the center. Downtown Seattle is off to the left, out of frame and behind the bluff on the left side of this image.

Mt. St. Helens started like that... I lived on the side of Mt. Hood (Oregon) when the top half blew off in 1980... We had to use snow shovels to clean up ash. It was kind of weird. We knew it was going to blow anytime (days), but we all just sort of filed out of class, and went out to watch. There was no announcement. I was in electronics shop class, think the teacher was on a coffee break... But, most of the other shop classess did what we did. There were a lot of students of staff back there. Just a big, grey cloud, kept growing, slow motion.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
You are living in denial, that is if your basement cubicle can really be called life

I live in Washington. There is no town called 'Denial' here.

Maybe he mistyped Denali?? Then again, that's still quite a bit NW from you... I suppose it wouldn't take all too much for you to fly there though.

Quite a distance actually (1540 miles), and over some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, through some of the worst weather (low clouds and rain almost continuously) along the route, which is an international route.

Nah. Denali isn't in my backyard at all. We do have Mt Rainier though (Mt Tahoma). It's some 14000 ft high. It's also an active volcano. Most of the time it just steams a bit if at all. It looks remarkably like an ice cream sundae on a clear day. All you need is the cherry on top.

Mt Rainier as seen from the water just off Discovery Park

This is looking across Elliot Bay (salt water). The bridge you see there is the West Seattle bridge, and the idle cranes from the Port of Seattle (now largely shut down) are in the center. Downtown Seattle is off to the left, out of frame and behind the bluff on the left side of this image.

Mt. St. Helens started like that... I lived on the side of Mt. Hood (Oregon) when the top half blew off in 1980... We had to use snow shovels to clean up ash. It was kind of weird. We knew it was going to blow anytime (days), but we all just sort of filed out of class, and went out to watch. There was no announcement. I was in electronics shop class, think the teacher was on a coffee break... But, most of the other shop classess did what we did. There were a lot of students of staff back there. Just a big, grey cloud, kept growing, slow motion.

I lived in Olympia when St Helens blew. The civil defense guys were handing out masks. I got an extra one for a friend of mine that I knew slept during the day. We went over to his place and knocked on his door.

Still groggy from waking up, the first thing he sees is this fine white ash sifting out of the sky and covering the ground, and these two friends of his standing there wearing masks and holding one out to him. The first words out of his mouth were, "Did we get nuked?".

St Helens was a very pretty mountain. It looks like a broken tooth now. Vegetation returned quickly, and some trees are getting re-established now. When the lahar reached Longview, they converted it into a dike against the Columbia river.

Mt Rainier seems to have quite a few cracks in it that allow pressure to vent instead of build up. It's must larger than St Helens, but if it erupts, it will effectively wipe out large parts of Tacoma and Seattle (especially the Kent and Tukwila valley) with the lahar. All that area is built on the previous lahar that flowed through that valley from Mt Rainier.

The bigger danger to the region is actually earthquake. The wet side of the PNW sits on a microplate caught like a gear between the Pacific plate and the Continental plate. As the Pacific plate grinds northward, our microplate turns under the Cascades, powering the volcanic activity all up and down the Cascade range.

Like any plate, it sticks. When it releases, a strong surface earthquake can result.

Boeing used to use heavy metal desks. It is said that anytime one of these is moved, the Earth's axis shifts and we get an Earthquake.

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

Into the Night wrote:
The last truckstop diner I ate at had an amazing waitress.

IBdaMann wrote:
Good news! I took another look at the graphic and I actually am on there. I don't know how, but apparently I have the best seat in the house.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

There was only one Unabomber, the name given by the FBI to the investigation of a bomber that mailed packages to folks in technology related industries. Finally identified as Ted Kaczynski (now serving time), his bombing spree killed 3 and injured 23 people.

Ted was a math wiz and even went to Harvard, before rejecting the world and going to live off grid in a cabin. There he developed his anarchistic view, and blamed what he saw as destruction of nature on industrialists and technology. This is where he targeted his bombing campaign.

At one point he published a manifesto (in Penthouse Magazine) detailing why he conducted the bombing campaign, which covered States all across the country.

The bombs themselves had a couple of unique characteristics about them. Ted tended to include some material that was 'nature oriented' such as a wooden case or some part depending on a piece of wood, and usually the letters 'FC' were inscribed on some parts of the bomb. Ted said this stood for 'Freedom Club'.

In prison he became friends with other bombers, including Timothy McVeigh (at least until McVeigh's execution), the Oklahoma City bomber (a truck bomb); and Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade Center bomber (a truck bomb).

He is also known as the 'Junkyard Bomber' since his packages were made out of bits of scrap, and the 'Zodiac Bomber' so named for all the bombs he mailed or delivered to California.

The FBI finally caught up to him at his isolated cabin in Montana.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

There was only one Unabomber, the name given by the FBI to the investigation of a bomber that mailed packages to folks in technology related industries. Finally identified as Ted Kaczynski (now serving time), his bombing spree killed 3 and injured 23 people.

Ted was a math wiz and even went to Harvard, before rejecting the world and going to live off grid in a cabin. There he developed his anarchistic view, and blamed what he saw as destruction of nature on industrialists and technology. This is where he targeted his bombing campaign.

At one point he published a manifesto (in Penthouse Magazine) detailing why he conducted the bombing campaign, which covered States all across the country.

The bombs themselves had a couple of unique characteristics about them. Ted tended to include some material that was 'nature oriented' such as a wooden case or some part depending on a piece of wood, and usually the letters 'FC' were inscribed on some parts of the bomb. Ted said this stood for 'Freedom Club'.

In prison he became friends with other bombers, including Timothy McVeigh (at least until McVeigh's execution), the Oklahoma City bomber (a truck bomb); and Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade Center bomber (a truck bomb).

He is also known as the 'Junkyard Bomber' since his packages were made out of bits of scrap, and the 'Zodiac Bomber' so named for all the bombs he mailed or delivered to California.

The FBI finally caught up to him at his isolated cabin in Montana.

LOL and Oswald and two others shot JFK, because Bush the CIA chief looked the other way. Trump has the documents digitized and if he gets offed everyone knows.

Next

Next

Lassie says woof

Now grow up and stop throwing hissy fits

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:

Swan wrote:
Cat got your tongue?

I don't know about unibombers, but in this pic I am the cat and you are mr green shit which means I got your tongue.

There was only one Unabomber, the name given by the FBI to the investigation of a bomber that mailed packages to folks in technology related industries. Finally identified as Ted Kaczynski (now serving time), his bombing spree killed 3 and injured 23 people.

Ted was a math wiz and even went to Harvard, before rejecting the world and going to live off grid in a cabin. There he developed his anarchistic view, and blamed what he saw as destruction of nature on industrialists and technology. This is where he targeted his bombing campaign.

At one point he published a manifesto (in Penthouse Magazine) detailing why he conducted the bombing campaign, which covered States all across the country.

The bombs themselves had a couple of unique characteristics about them. Ted tended to include some material that was 'nature oriented' such as a wooden case or some part depending on a piece of wood, and usually the letters 'FC' were inscribed on some parts of the bomb. Ted said this stood for 'Freedom Club'.

In prison he became friends with other bombers, including Timothy McVeigh (at least until McVeigh's execution), the Oklahoma City bomber (a truck bomb); and Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade Center bomber (a truck bomb).

He is also known as the 'Junkyard Bomber' since his packages were made out of bits of scrap, and the 'Zodiac Bomber' so named for all the bombs he mailed or delivered to California.

The FBI finally caught up to him at his isolated cabin in Montana.

LOL and Oswald and two others shot JFK, because Bush the CIA chief looked the other way. Trump has the documents digitized and if he gets offed everyone knows.

Next

Next

Lassie says woof

Now grow up and stop throwing hissy fits

No one is having hissy fits except you and Sealover.
There were no 'two others'. Just Oswald, using a bolt action rifle.

Swan wrote:Then why did the military threaten Trump when he was about to legally release the info on the CIA chief's murder of JFK

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Then why did the military threaten Trump when he was about to legally release the info on the CIA chief's murder of JFK

The military never threatened Trump.