Text 12130, 92 rader
Skriven 2005-04-24 08:27:35 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 12121 av MARNIE TROSCLAIR (1:123/140)
Ärende: CANDIDATE FOR 2005 DARWIN
=================================
24 Apr 05 00:19, MARNIE TROSCLAIR wrote to JOHN HULL:

 MT> John, John, John,  

 MT> My, oh, my.  Tsk, tsk.  

 MT>> John Hull's source is "a local chat echo."

 JH>> It's not *MY* account, you ignorant bitch.

 MT> I acknowledged your "source," John.  That's the "local chat echo."
 MT> YOu made no mention of your source in your original post to this 
 MT> thread. In fact, there was no attribution whatsoever in your post!  Nor 
 MT> did you distinguish anything you might have contributed from the 
 MT> material you later claimed to have forwarded from that "local chat echo."
 MT> Now you resort to name-calling.  How desparate you are, you 
 MT> pathetic little man.  

Listen up, you twisted broad.  As usual, you missed the entire point of why I
posted that piece.  It was on a private mailing list you have to be invited to
join in order to receive.  You obviously aren't invited, so there was no point
in giving a source.  And even if the details were not entirely correct, the
point it made was what was important.  You're obviously too damn dumb to have
figured that out.

 MT>> Have you noticed that Hull has been repeatedly shown to be wrong 
 MT>> in recent weeks and he never admits it?  He never backs down.  
 MT>> He just keeps on going, making error after error.

 JH>> Another goddamn lie.

 MT> Oh?  You claimed to have posted an article by the man who coined 
 MT> the term "neoconservative."  But you didn't.  So you obviously don't 
 MT> know who coined the term.  But you never acknowledged your error.
 MT> You've also taken a stance on the Schiavo case that puts you
 MT> in direct opposition to some of those same conservative 
 MT> foundations.
 MT> This is all the more interesting given the fact that they are
 MT> pro-life (anti-abortion) which you claim to be.  You also argued
 MT> that pro-choice was the same as pro-abortion, which it isn't.
 MT> You never acknowledged your error.

Oh, pack it in your ass.  You just don't like the fact that I found the
original article and you didn't.  You have a real bad habit of putting words in
people's mouths and then claiming they said this or that, twisting what is said
to suit your own whacked out agenda.  I'm not the only one who has called you
on it either.

 MT> You have disparaged the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
 MT> without having read it.  But, not only that, you have disparaged 
 MT> National Geographic, NASA, NOAA, the Department of Commerce 
 MT> and the journal SCIENCE, as well as the more than one thousand 
 MT> scientists who worked on the report.  

You're really hilarious.  You think just because these clowns work for a legit
organization that they can't be flakes?  The Kyoto Accords were signed by
dozens of so-called experts on the environment, yet it has been debunked by
nearly every reputable environmental group in the world, and a report just
released last week shows - again - just what I said all along that it was bogus
bullshit.  I've been following this stuff for over 40 years, long before it was
even on the horizon among people like you and the general public.  So don't
preach to me about how great these agencies are.  I've watched them change
their stories on a regular basis for decades.  By the way, SCIENCE is a mass
media rag, not a technical journal.  It has frequent factual errors in it,
which you would know if you bothered to read it on a regular basis. 

 JH>> We don't give a damn what some article says.

 MT> If that were the case, you wouldn't be criticized for your 
 MT> constant vague references to something you read or saw on TV.  And we'd 
 MT> never expect you to ask for references, cites, quotes, etc.  And neither 
 MT> you nor Jeff Binkley, John Massey, Alan Hess, nor anyone else in the
 MT> forum would ever post articles here, unless it was for the sole
 MT> purpose of mocking them.  But, that's not the case, is it?

You left wing twinks are the only ones getting all upset.  John, Alan, the
Ed's, etc., don't seem to have any problems with my posts.  As for articles,
most of us post articles as informational supplements to what we're discussing;
we don't expect the damn article to speak FOR us like you idiots do.  Not a
damn one of you left wing freaks has posted anything in here that shows
evidence of thought on your own part in so long I can't remember when its been.
 When you do post something, its for the sole purpose of trashing Bush, Delay,
one of us here, or some other conservative for daring to have an opinion that
didn't come from some asswipe like Harry Reid or Howard Dean.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)