IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Stephen Schneider, R.I.P.

elreb
post Jul 22 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #21





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Brother Tam,

And don’t forget that “Natural Gas”…Methane…when exposed to Oxygen and heat gives off CO2 and water.

Our original atmosphere and fresh water oceans came from this reaction. So that about 100 million years?

Just guessing but I would think that “Global Warming” comes from “Space” like Sun spots or Super novae.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 23 2010, 12:16 AM
Post #22





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (elreb @ Jul 21 2010, 01:24 AM) *
Brother Tam,

And don’t forget that “Natural Gas”…Methane…when exposed to Oxygen and heat gives off CO2 and water.

Our original atmosphere and fresh water oceans came from this reaction. So that about 100 million years?

Just guessing but I would think that “Global Warming” comes from “Space” like Sun spots or Super novae.



Hi brother El,

the products you're talking about are all still polarized, still got their 'vitality,

and therefore can still be utilized to whatever purpose they are GOOD for.

We're talking about gas emissions which has done their job and are no longer

to any use because they are now 'dead' in the true sense of the word. They

therefore no longer have any influence on anything whatsoever and should

simply be ignored ....... for who in their right mind would want to go around

thinking about useless things that no more serve their purpose and more to

the point, no more 'exist' .....i ask you!!


Not "global warming", but rather "difference in climate activity" should be used

i think. And yes in my view also, the Sun and Sun spots plays a significant role

in all of this, without any doubt.

Cheers mate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 23 2010, 09:27 AM
Post #23





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 23 2010, 03:33 AM) *


Tume, I watched the Schneider "interview" a few times and IMO, it is apparant he is reading from a script, literally. Watch his eyes. He has been told what he is going to say. It is obvious he is the waterboy for a bogus agenda, these are NOT his objectfive, heart-felt opinions. He's a politician.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 23 2010, 09:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 23 2010, 12:25 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (elreb @ Jul 21 2010, 02:24 AM) *
Brother Tam,

And don’t forget that “Natural Gas”…Methane…when exposed to Oxygen and heat gives off CO2 and water.

Our original atmosphere and fresh water oceans came from this reaction. So that about 100 million years?

Just guessing but I would think that “Global Warming” comes from “Space” like Sun spots or Super novae.

100 million years?

Not even close. Somewhere over 4 billion years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 23 2010, 01:11 PM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 20 2010, 01:05 PM) *
Omega, not for nothing, but your posts are taking on the appearance of spam. I'll be ignoring them in the future.

Spam! Frigging spam.

Hey bro' its folk like you endlessly repeating the 'Global Warming is a hoax' mantra without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of a growing body of evidence, to which I have cited sources, that are spreading spam, and thick at that.

All you do is pick on one aspect at a time and create a straw man out of it.

So, seeing as you cannot engage in rational, adult argument you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

Because you cannot be bothered to actually study some science on this you flounce off.

I'll try again.

On your

QUOTE
'it is NOT a result of the minute amount of CO2 man produces, .02 percent. That's where the warmists screwed up big-time.


The reference to 'warmists' tells me that you are listening to ideologues rather than discovering stuff for yourself.

Whatever in that above you raise one of those straw men.

See this:

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

and don't forget these are just starting points on what should be a voyage of discovery for you, poster chris at 09:11 AM on 31 October, 2008 over there summed things up well:


QUOTE
"More or less in balance" isn't "a cop out". There's a pretty good understanding of the short term and medium term carbon cycle that dominates the carbon flux between the atmosphere and biosphere, and on longer periods, the atmosphere and terrestrial environment.

So to answer your first question:

["How much out of balance does it have to be before you consider it not in equilibrium?"]

If atmospheric CO2 levels haven't varied much more than about 20 ppm (maybe 30 ppm according to some plant stomatal index analyses) around 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years before the 20th century, one can conclude that the system has been more or less in balance. It's not "a cop out" to state the obvious. The flux of carbon into the atmosphere has been reasonably closely balanced by the flux out of the atmosphere for vast periods of time before the 20th century.

And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium. So if one considers only the interglacial periods, the atmospheric CO2 was below or around 300 ppm during this entire period according to the proxy record:


e.g. Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" Nature 406, 695-699.

M. Pagani et al. (2005) "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene", Science 309, 600 – 603.

T. K. Lowenstein and R. V. Demicco (2006) "Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline" Science 313, 1928.

R. M. DeConto et al (2008) "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" Nature 455, 652-656


Note that it's worth distinguishing the interglacial and glacial periods here, since the shift of atmospheric CO2 down to around 170-180 ppm during glacials is similarly part of the short term carbon cycle that relates to the distribution of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere, oceans and atmosphere. In this case it's the temperature-dependent element of the cycle and its response to very slow insolation variation (Milankovitch cycles).

So we can talk about being "near equilibrium" or "more or less in balance" in quite explicit terms:

(i) On the timescale of 1000-10,000 years, the relatively fixed amount of ACCESSIBLE carbon distributing between the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere has maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration that has undergone relatively little variation (the overall variations during 1000's of years of the order of the changes now occurring in about a decade).

(ii) on the timescale of 10 million years the longer term carbon cycle involving the sedimentation of carbon as carbonates in the deep oceans and the slow release of carbon from ocean plate subduction and volcanic activity has also been more or less in balance. The atmospheric CO2 record of the last 10 million years suppoorts that conclusion.

(iii) On top of the equilibrium carbon distributions of the carbon cycle on the millions of years timescale, insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) cause very slow requilibration of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean/terrestrial environments.


Now something quite different is happening. A massive store of excess carbon inaccessible to the carbon cycle for many 10's of millions of years is being rapidly reintroduced into the system in an extraordinarily short time period. Not surprisingly the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising very rapidly indeed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium (there's a large nett flux into the atmosphere from previously long-sequestered sources), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is being driven up towards some new equilibrium concentration.

And the above also address your second question:

["How does all that CO2 locked up as carbonate sediment compare to the oil/gas/coal deposits?"]

That's not quite a relevant question. Considering carbonate sediments and their formation, the long term paleoCO2 record of the last 10 million years or so indicates that carbonate sedimentation has been pretty much in balance with the return of CO2 from subducted carbonate back through volcanoes into the atmosphere.


...where the "out of balance" element has arisen is the awesomely rapid oxidation and return to the atmosphere of massive stores of carbon previously sequestered out of the short and medium carbon cycles for 10's and 100's of millions of years.

Note that dynamic systems CAN be in equilibrium. In general they fluctuate around equilibrium states. Of course one can raise semantic issues about the extent to which a particular fluctuation constitutes a departure from equilibrium. But it's quite easy to be explicit and define exactly what one means by the particular equilibrium in question.


See also:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

and whilst your over at Skeptical Science check out that list of Most Used Skeptic Arguments

as for CO2 being good for crops well that may sound plausible but in reality there are some troublesome caveats:

Carbon Lobby Launches "CO2 is Green" Campaign

Wheat gets worse as CO2 rises

that is just the tip of that particular iceberg.

More on the Myths you all keep coming up with here:

ViMyths vs. Facts: Global Warming

and Check out those Climate Crock videos - inform yourself.

As for the science try this:

An illustrated guide to the latest climate science

and the ONLINE TEXT BOOKS listed in the left side panel here:
Rabett Run

Seeing as you are so afraid of your bogey-men in the form of NWO ideologues you need to reappraise your ideas but I guess pointing out the obvious that Beck & Co. work on their behalf you come over all cognitive dissonancy and side with them on this 'Global Warming is a Hoax' meme'.

How strange is that?

It certainly isn't me who is 'nucking futz' and spreading bullshit and propaganda as I have amply demonstrated to anybody who

can truly think for themselves. (Nod to Tambourineman there and his New Age pseudo-science)

Please note that I have fully supported, as much as a disabled person on limited means can do, the efforts of those trying to counter the lie that is 9/11. With this in mind I have, as with most things I have an opinion on, done much reading and studied from the aspect of one familiar with both aviation and engineering. Being disabled I read widely, but then over my many years that has been a habit of a lifetime.

Dismissing me in a few hand-waved phrases is becoming somewhat boorish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 23 2010, 01:12 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 21 2010, 12:27 PM) *
Tume, I watched the Schneider "interview" a few times and IMO, it is apparant he is reading from a script, literally. Watch his eyes. He has been told what he is going to say. It is obvious he is the waterboy for a bogus agenda, these are NOT his objectfive, heart-felt opinions. He's a politician.

If Schneider was a politician you are Albert Einstein!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 23 2010, 01:16 PM
Post #27





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jul 21 2010, 01:33 AM) *

Just testing that you actually watched it.

So. How far off was he? Orders of magnitude?

There was a post of your some while back where you went on about solar output at the start and made many erroneous statements. Firefighting the many here as I am I am afraid that my health went down before I could reply and then the thread vanished into the background. I have not forgotten it and had a reply worked out in thought. Time is pressing on me again now but I'll be back.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 23 2010, 01:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 24 2010, 02:37 AM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jul 21 2010, 04:11 PM) *
Hey bro' its folk like you endlessly repeating the 'Global Warming is a hoax' mantra without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of a growing body of evidence, to which I have cited sources, that are spreading spam, and thick at that.


It certainly isn't me who is 'nucking futz' and spreading bullshit and propaganda as I have amply demonstrated to anybody who

can truly think for themselves. (Nod to Tambourineman there and his New Age pseudo-science)



Thanks for giving me a mention, Omega, but none for spelling my name wrong.


So you must obviously think that spend fuel that turns to smoke and gas emissions,

which again cause the various particles making up the smoke and gases to separate

and revert back to their origin because of the depolarization that has taken place,

is nothing but "New Age pseudo-science"!


It could therefore never enter your mind that it could be the Truth, and that all your

reading and all your gathering of quotes from around the world thus could have been

an enormous waste of time for all involved?


Fair enough, but then you owe us the courtesy to explain how it is that all other

'matter' produced by mother Earth, which of course includes our frail physical bodies,

all go through this process, but according to you, spend and 'dead' gas emissions are

exempted from!!

Please tell us why you think these gases are still 'alive' and active, and as such have

influence upon their surroundings in the form of a "greenhouse" type of effect or

whatever else.

Perhaps even come with some sort of proof of your case, if this is possible.

Then all will be happy, and you can then enjoy some peace and rest you've been

without for a long time.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 24 2010, 12:00 PM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 22 2010, 04:37 AM) *
Thanks for giving me a mention, Omega, but none for spelling my name wrong.

So I wrote from memory and used the spelling more common this side of the pond.

But that is small beer compared to how you insulted me by comparing me to Cheney and Bush. How dare you, how frigging dare you! You clearly have not seen many of my posts here relating to 9/11 etc.

As for not having an original thought - if only you knew. But you don't know that much about me so do yourself a favour and stop being so insulting, it makes you look like a bigot.

QUOTE
So you must obviously think that spend fuel that turns to smoke and gas emissions,

which again cause the various particles making up the smoke and gases to separate

and revert back to their origin because of the depolarization that has taken place,

is nothing but "New Age pseudo-science"!

What EXACTLY do you mean by 'depolarization'?

Sounds like the sort of thinking exposed by Robert Park in his excellent:

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

you should dig out a copy and read it.

Whatever this bit makes no sense:

QUOTE
Fair enough, but then you owe us the courtesy to explain how it is that all other

'matter' produced by mother Earth, which of course includes our frail physical bodies,

all go through this process, but according to you, spend and 'dead' gas emissions are

exempted from!!


and as for:

QUOTE
Please tell us why you think these gases are still 'alive' and active, and as such have

influence upon their surroundings in the form of a "greenhouse" type of effect or

whatever else.

Gases being alive and active, what is that supposed to mean?

Whatever.
CO2 molecules, and those of other GHGs, are sensitive to particular electromagnetic wavelengths which make them vibrate generating heat. This heat warms the atmosphere and in turn the ground. The increasing temperature differential between troposphere and stratosphere, as measured by satellites, is proof that the heating effect is real. Study black body radiation and quantum physics to understand more on this. You will also need a grounding in atmospheric science. I have provided links, again, in my last post to Quest to material that will help.

I have explained to lunk wrt molecular vibrations the corollary with musical instruments and sound by using the shattering of glass, as an example, and glass should be considered a fluid, by certain pitches as an example of atomic interaction by sound waves.

The trouble with 'original thinking' is that it can often lead to foolishness if not tempered by knowledge and experience.

Many truths in science are very counter-intuitive and common sense can lead the unwary astray (as the example of S Warren Carey attests) - to injury and death of themselves and others. When you fly do you totally understand all the forces and mechanisms involved? I very much doubt it.

And before you accuse me of 'ad hominems' consider the true meaning of the expression and also the example which you yourself have provided.

EDIT

Explanatory section added.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 24 2010, 12:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 24 2010, 04:52 PM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Omega, do you believe one of the reasons for 911 was so that the elite could tighten their grip over the masses so that we don't "destroy the planet with CO2"? And if that hadn't already occurred to you, now that I've asked the question, do you think something like 911 could have been 'justifiable' if indeed that was the intent, that is, to save humans from themselves and to save the planet in the process?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Jul 24 2010, 08:36 PM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Whatever.
CO2 molecules, and those of other GHGs, are sensitive to particular electromagnetic wavelengths which make them vibrate generating heat. This heat warms the atmosphere and in turn the ground. The increasing temperature differential between troposphere and stratosphere, as measured by satellites, is proof that the heating effect is real. Study black body radiation and quantum physics to understand more on this. You will also need a grounding in atmospheric science. I have provided links, again, in my last post to Quest to material that will help.


Thanks for finally after all these years putting what you think is going on into your own word Omega, It's no wonder you think you're standing on the precipice of mount doom. Thank goodness you're also totally wrong in describing the bullshit so called "Green House Effect" that all the terror is based on.

This is a diagram showing the IPCC version of the GHE.



As you can see the illustration describes the blanket or green house effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, It's this blanket effect and all the imagined, made up and down right bullshitted into existence follow on effects which make up the "greenhouse Effect".

The term Greenhouse Effect itself is deliberately misleading and allows all sorts of ways for the perps to use long striding weasel words and mathemagical equations to bluster and bluff the layperson into this phantom belief, the fact is that CO2 like all other gasses in our atmosphere are as potent as green house gasses as the function of their mass allows them to be, in other words CO2 which represents a tiny portion of our atmosphere does and always will represent a tiny portion of any blanket effect.

Natural variability is a real bitch and doesn't need any fantasy story's made up by a bunch of thieving bankters, we as a species need to defend ourselves from the real here and now and not phantoms.


http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/En...ctionOfMass.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 25 2010, 07:47 AM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jul 22 2010, 02:00 PM) *
1) So I wrote from memory and used the spelling more common this side of the pond.

2) But that is small beer compared to how you insulted me by comparing me to Cheney and Bush. How dare you, how frigging dare you! You clearly have not seen many of my posts here relating to 9/11 etc.

3) As for not having an original thought - if only you knew.

4) What EXACTLY do you mean by 'depolarization'?

5) and as for:
Gases being alive and active, what is that supposed to mean?

6) The trouble with 'original thinking' is that it can often lead to foolishness if not tempered by knowledge and experience.



1) Not good enough excuse. Personally i apologize when making mistakes like that.

2) I did not compare you to bush and cheney, but to people like them. The example i gave was in the video clip.

3) Think i need proof of this, because i cannot force myself to believe you otherwise. Sorry.

4) I must obviously be ahead of time!

5) It means that some gases are still active, while others are no longer active. A great great difference!

6) Have never heard of any 'original thinking', if it comes from the Light, ever leading to foolishness. Please give an example if you will!

Cheers buddy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 25 2010, 08:47 AM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875





"
QUOTE
cooling due to Earths curvature
"?!

Now think about this,
the curvature of the Earth increases with depth toward the center of the Earth.
The center of the Earth is hot. The space above the Earth is cold.
So as one descends into greater curvature toward the center of gravity of the Earth, temperature should generally increase.

But i guess, if they said "heating due to Earths' curvature"
it takes away from their illogical point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jul 26 2010, 03:10 PM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



the global warming camp loses another one:

http://climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-En...rld-middleclass
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 26 2010, 03:27 PM
Post #35





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Jul 23 2010, 10:47 AM) *
1) Not good enough excuse. Personally i apologize when making mistakes like that.

Too bad. That's how it is.

If you want to be a slapphead over it that's your problem.

Your tone from the beginning has been insulting and apparent given your level of understanding and how I have gone out of my way to help you learn the facts that is sad.

Even more sad is that you chose to ignore all the good stuff and persist with drivel.

QUOTE
2) I did not compare you to bush and cheney, but to people like them.

Not good enough, go back and read your post again.

But then you mangle the language so much that I guess your words could mean just about anything.

QUOTE
4) I must obviously be ahead of time!

No. You are helping to push mankind into a new dark age based upon fantasies.

QUOTE
5) It means that some gases are still active, while others are no longer active. A great great difference!

That explains nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 26 2010, 03:31 PM
Post #36





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jul 24 2010, 06:10 PM) *
the global warming camp loses another one:

http://climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-En...rld-middleclass

Morano is not somebody with brains pays much attention to. As he is pushing such a story then the the scientific community have not lost much. There is bound to be a validity problem with this story, Moreno cannot report anything without distortion.

You do realise of course that he was once Inhofe's PR hack, that should warn you to beware.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 26 2010, 03:40 PM
Post #37





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



What you should all read before going further:

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral

and especially this:

The Montford Delusion

and now some video clips for your edification:

Carl Sagan: Consider Again That Pale Blue Dot

and the end of that one the message is aimed at you people.

Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye)

Carl Sagan: A Universe Not Made For Us

Now think some more about things and consider that Feynman would disagree strongly with Inhofe and his ex henchman Morano, who sounds like a moron but is anything but - he is frigging dangerous to your future.

Anybody here have children and grandchildren. I do. It is for them that I continue with this debate here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jul 26 2010, 07:47 PM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



the article was about rancourt. do you have an issue with him as well?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Jul 26 2010, 10:46 PM
Post #39





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jul 24 2010, 06:27 PM) *
Too bad. That's how it is.

If you want to be a slapphead over it that's your problem.

Your tone from the beginning has been insulting and apparent given your level of understanding and how I have gone out of my way to help you learn the facts that is sad.

Even more sad is that you chose to ignore all the good stuff and persist with drivel.


Not good enough, go back and read your post again.

But then you mangle the language so much that I guess your words could mean just about anything.


No. You are helping to push mankind into a new dark age based upon fantasies.


That explains nothing.



1) No. Just tried to find out what makes you tick. Now i know.

Re. 'tone'. I urge you to go back to all your earlier posts here

and rediscover how you've been abusing all and sundry who

doesn't agree with your opinions.


2) Funny how you ignore the video clip. Is it because it was funny??


4) No, not us. It's you yourself who gullibly have succumbed to a

huge fear campaign rising from the deepest of darkness and ignorance.


5) That explains everything.


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jul 26 2010, 11:14 PM
Post #40





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Brother Tam,

When I was in college, I did not agree with my professor on the “Big Bang” theory.

His solution was to “Dress down the student” as a mother would scold a child for being wet after a thunder storm.

Thugs beat people for being bad victims. Just eat the cold soup!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 05:46 PM