REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

I just heard the stupid comment of the week.

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 22:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5244
PAGE 2 of 3

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:33 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If you having to think those things makes you feel better about yourself, have at it. Lord knows, you do seem to need all the help you can get.

If this is in refrence to some of the threads that have been started recently, I can well believe you've got something to do with it. Seems just in keeping with the tactics of a coward like you.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:49 PM

EMMARIGBY


I'm going to stop trying to debate this issue and go to bed but coudn't resist one last metaphore that occured to me.

Those that deny the existance or seriousness of global warming resemble, to me, motorcycle riders who refuse to buy a helmet on the grounds that they are expensive and they read somewhere that helmets don't improve safety much. They may survive to old age (although unless they have looked at an accurate sample of statistics their descision could be viewed as poorly informed), but the consequences of them being wrong could be anywhere from bad to fatal. Now I don't mind if other people want to take risks with their lives, what I do object to is goverments taking risks with the planet's ecosystem without consulting me.

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

Thank you.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 1:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Unwrapped,
Quote:

... YOUR scientist (sic) who promote man made global warming are as pure as the wind driven snow, while my sources are nothing more than Big Oil or Gov't shills ...
What about the global consortium of scientists and the National Academy of Sciences? They all seem to think that global warming 1) is real and 2) is caused by human activity. Do you think they are all corrupted while you (in your expert scientific opinion) have "the truth"?

More to the point, why is the only good science (according to you) the science you happen to agree with?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 2:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I'm going to stop trying to debate this issue and go to bed but coudn't resist one last metaphore that occured to me.

Those that deny the existance or seriousness of global warming resemble, to me, motorcycle riders who refuse to buy a helmet on the grounds that they are expensive and they read somewhere that helmets don't improve safety much. They may survive to old age (although unless they have looked at an accurate sample of statistics their descision could be viewed as poorly informed), but the consequences of them being wrong could be anywhere from bad to fatal. Now I don't mind if other people want to take risks with their lives, what I do object to is goverments taking risks with the planet's ecosystem without consulting me.

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

Thank you.

___________________
Hissssssssss!



Opinion polls aside, I use to be young and duped into the Green way of thinking. Then I grew up. I was discussing w/ a fellow class mate of mine the impending doom facing our planet, running out of oil. " The amount of oil we have is FINITE! We must find alternate sources of energy, cut back, increase taxes on oil.....etc, do ANYTHING to reign in the excessive use of oil. It was so self evident, I couldn't see how ANYONE didn't see the impending problem. All the while, my classmate, whom I got along well enough with despite this one issue, was so clam, smug and confident in her views, it really ticked me off more.

She knew what she was talking about, and I didn't.I was basing my views on what I'd seen on news magazines covers, the nightly news and the daily newspaper headlines. Turns out, all that news that's fit to print - ISN'T. While I wasn't converted on the spot, I was forced to question my own perspective. What came after was a long conversion from being a tree hugger in training to seeing the larger picture on this matter.

That little 'debate' took place in 1981. I was in HS. You know, at that age where kids think they know everything, but have only just begun to learn.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Unwrapped,
Quote:

It was so self evident, I couldn't see how ANYONE didn't see the impending problem.
What part did you come to disbelieve? The part that there is a limit on oil, or some other angle?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 3:58 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:


Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

Let's get both sides together with all of their data and let them hammer on each other until all can agree on one stance.
The UN and the NAS (US National Academy of Sciences) do agree. Who else are you looking for?



Are you sure the NAS is in agreement?

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/17.html



De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:05 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
A call for science from the guy who says scientists are wrong about global warming. WHOO HOOOO



To be fair, not all scientists are in agreement about global warming, and even those who believe the environment is getting warmer don't agree on human action's part in the process.

Myself, as I've sat huddling in my expensively air-conditioned apartment hiding from the 104 degree heat outside, I've been annoyed by people connecting a seasonal heat wave with global warming. Geez guys, do some research, it doesn't work that way.

"I've got a Master's degree. In SCIENCE!" -- Dr. Science

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

hAre you sure the NAS is in agreement?
YES
ttp://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.phprecord_id=10139&page=1

From the NAS website:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.


Another article on the topic

AN OP-ED article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,
7925596.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


RocketJock,

It's true that not ALL scientists agree. But all the credible ones who have research to back them up do. See the article above.

The uncertainty is not whether the earth is warming, or whether human activity is causing it, it is in what fraction of global warming should be attributed to natural variation. As the NAS concluded, the change is far too large to be natural variation. But some small fraction may be.

And you, like Unwrapped, must be hallucinating. Did I say anything about summer heat waves ???? PLEASE feel free to quote me!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:33 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


See what I mean.
These two divergent statements were found in the same book which was linked to the NAS' home page. Oh yeah, clear as mud now.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


You just don't know science. It's never 100%.
What YOUR link says is:

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.
----------------------------------------

What the overall report concluded (couched in terms of confidence and statistics) was:

There is sufficient evidence ... to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, ... although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1167
6






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 4:53 PM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?


yes Rue...

and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 5:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

I dunno. Mine's from June 22 2006. It was commissioned by congress and is the official conclusion of the NAS. When's yours from? What does it address?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 7:17 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

I admit to not being particularly well informed about the politics of the current US environmental policies. Have any opinion polls/ referendums on this issue been carried out? What is the current opinion of the general populace on Kyoto and other 'Green' issues? I should very much like to know.

My husband is a research scientist working for the Dept of Energy. The DOE officially supports the theory of global warming and urges all its scientists to direct all their research efforts towards carbon sequestration and the like. It is what is politically popular right now. Dissenting scientists (like my husband) are asked by the administrators to keep their opinions to themselves.

I don't know about public opinion polls, but it is my impression that most people believe that manmade global warming is no longer in debate, but a widely accepted fact.

Personally, I consider myself "green" on most environmental issues. I believe we have a responsibility to take care of our planet, not only for ourselves and our progeny, but for all other life that we share the planet with. I am deeply concerned about all sorts of pollution, from industrial to biological to electromagnetic. I have no love for corporatism or what greed passes for "free market" nowadays. I despise John Stossel. Politically, I hate Bush more than I hated Clinton, if that is possible. I truly came to the global warming table with no agenda to serve.

And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)

According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.

To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 24, 2006 8:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

And yet I can't endorse manmade global warming. Things appear to be getting warmer, yes. Is the change significant? I don't know. Is it manmade? I can't say. I don't think there is enough *evidence* to conclude either way. (Obviously, what is not evidence to me is plenty for others. That is just how the world turns.)
I wonder. If it were any other scientific topic, would you be as skeptical of the data (it might be getting warmer, it's possibly significant), the analysis (there will never be enough information) and the scientific consensus (it's all just opionion)? Is it skepticism in general, or a reaction to this particular topic that causes you to dismiss the best science available?
Quote:

According to my husband, many of his research colleagues do not "believe in" global warming either. But because it is where the money and perceived public support is nowadays, they gear all their research and lip service towards it. In other words, scientists are corruptible by money and opinion, just like everyone else. Plus they don't see any harm in pretending to support something that they don't know for sure isn't true.
There is more of a name to be made by disproving global warming than by publishing yet another supporting study. But for all those who've tried, no one has managed to kill the idea.
Quote:

To me, global warming has become sort of like a religion. You just can't bring enough evidence to the table to prove that God exist or doesn't exist. People, by now, have already made up their minds and have all the evidence they need to back themselves up. All discussion is just name calling to feel a little righteous indignation and intellectual superiority.
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.
Quote:

Of course, I could be wrong.
I think you are.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:32 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.

I am not saying you can't prove or disprove global warming by evidence. I am saying that for most people, it is LIKE that. It is LIKE trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have NEVER seen anyone change his or her mind on this subject because someone brought new "evidence" to their attention. Have you? THAT is my point.

Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want. But when you tell me I am rejecting science, that goes too far. Just because I have different standards in evaluating evidence than you doesn't mean YOURS is "scientific" and mine isn't. Of course you think I'm wrong. That was my point. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong--and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.

If you have scientific evidence to back up global warming, I am telling you right now that I have no trouble admitting in public, right here on RWE, that I was wrong and I am now converted. However, I have seen nothing in all the links and documents you and the others have ever posted that is convincing so far.

And yes, I am as skeptical in all other areas as I am in this. My standards are my standards, and in many many fields that claim to have scientific consensus, the evidence just doesn't measure up for me. For example, I do not believe vaccines ever been proven to be effective or safe, despite "scientific" claims to the contrary.

I don't want to spiral into another endless GW name-calling session. So that is all I am going to say. Please try not to insult me again, though I fear that is an impossible request.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Edit to add: I forgot that nearly a year ago, I decided to stop talking to Rue about this subject. There are words, but absolutely no communication between us. If anyone else wants a rational, disspassionate discussion, I would be willing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

Just shut up before you embarrass yourself further you sad pathetic little man.

You haven't had a debate with anyone here ever, you've never brought anything to a discussion and every time you attempt to join in you end up in a slanging match with someone, me or whoever simply because the only way to perpetuate your warped, freighted nasty little viewpoint is to attack those that hold different ones rather than debating your own.

I have had civil debates with people here, you never have and never will, which just goes to prove what you say applies infinitely more to you than me or anyone else here (and I include PirateNews, you're worse by far).

You are nothing but a tired sad little hypocrite.

I’ll see you in September, or not, it’s up to you if you want to carry out your threats of physical violence, or prove finally that you're, as they say, "all mouth and no trousers".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:46 AM

EMMARIGBY


To be fair I can see why Rue is sounding unghappy. He personally has put a lot of time and effort into collecting data that you appear to be casually dismissing. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if someone treated your work in such an off-hand fashion.

By the way, I kind of like your metaphore of Global Warming as religion (even though one has an abundance of data covering many different fields of science and the other has none at all - but hey, it's a metaphore, right?!). I can see how, being unconvinced by the arguements for an omnipotent supreme being you would be justified in making the descision not to waste your time on church or your money on the collection plate. I myself am an agnostic and don't think much about the church. After all, if I am wrong about there being no God it would be only myself that would suffer. If I was presented with evidence that a large proportion of the world (including many species I am particularly fond of) would also suffer from my descision, even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Here endeth the sermon! (This is a joke by the way, I was merely stating my mind, I (sadly) have no expectations of converting anyone to my point of view!)

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:24 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
even if that evidence was only 80% convincing, I might be inclined to spend a small proportion in time on a pew and cough up a few pennies.

Good point. I don't mind, metaphorically speaking, spending some time on the pew and coughing up a few pennies myself. I object to our exorbitant use of fossil fuels for many other reasons and try to be conscientious in my personal consumption of energy.

But should we pass a law and force everyone to sit on a pew and cough up a few pennies? That is where I draw the line.

BTW, Rue didn't collect raw data personally. He and others have spent a lot of time collecting other people's data and opinions. I respect that effort. I have, in turn, dedicated due time evaluating those data and opinions. That is all that can be asked of me. After examining them, I remain unconvinced. I don't think that can be construed as a casual dismissal.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:05 AM

EMMARIGBY


Ah, now were getting down to philosophy (which I've never been very good at). I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

By the way, my apologies, the word 'casual' was in itself a bit dismissive. I respect the fact that you appear to have put some time into weighing some of the scientific arguements on both sides. Rue seems to have put a LOT of effort into weighing a vast amount of work (for which he has my respect. I have done reviews of published data myself, it's a labour intensive task). AuRaptor has, by his own admission and judging by the evidence he has used in his arguements, formed his opinions based on magazine articles and internet sites. If he has read real scientific articles I have never seen him quote them.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - It's funny to see you react w/ name calling as you do. That shows you're the real coward here, where you rely in ad hominems instead of substantive talking points. Small minds, like yours, react in such a manner.

It's what you do.

Just shut up before you embarrass yourself further you sad pathetic little man.

You haven't had a debate with anyone here ever, you've never brought anything to a discussion and every time you attempt to join in you end up in a slanging match with someone, me or whoever simply because the only way to perpetuate your warped, freighted nasty little viewpoint is to attack those that hold different ones rather than debating your own.

I have had civil debates with people here, you never have and never will, which just goes to prove what you say applies infinitely more to you than me or anyone else here (and I include PirateNews, you're worse by far).

You are nothing but a tired sad little hypocrite.

I’ll see you in September, or not, it’s up to you if you want to carry out your threats of physical violence, or prove finally that you're, as they say, "all mouth and no trousers".



It's funny how you attempt to project your own shortcomings and faults onto others. I mean, HI-LARIOUSLY funny. I've had countless civil discussions on fff.net, just none w/ YOU. Key word - YOU.

I'll still be here in Sept, though I'll retract that pint I was going to buy you. There are limits to how far Southern hospitality can go.

More mouth and trousers than you can handle.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:18 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION


Quote:





Um, thats really not necessary is it?





one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CANTTAKESKY
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
That's a blanket rejection of science. You have your ideas and everything else is just - name calling.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am not saying you can't prove or disprove global warming by evidence. I am saying that for most people, it is LIKE that. It is LIKE trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. I have NEVER seen anyone change his or her mind on this subject because someone brought new "evidence" to their attention. Have you? THAT is my point.


Oh absolutely. I have changed my mind on many things when presented with convincing data.
Quote:

Listen, you can call me stupid, arrogant, wrong, a dumbass, whatever you want.
All I did was say you were wrong.
Quote:

But when you tell me I am rejecting science, that goes too far. Just because I have different standards in evaluating evidence than you doesn't mean YOURS is "scientific" and mine isn't. Of course you think I'm wrong. You've made up your mind and everyone else who doesn't agree is wrong --and no amount of discussion can convince you otherwise.
My point is that until you and I become experts, we're pretty much stuck with expert scientific analysis to help inform us. It's not a religion, it's a process of education. And people who don't given credit to the weight of expert scientific analysis are wrong - for not giving it due credit.
Quote:

If you have scientific evidence to back up global warming, I am telling you right now that I have no trouble admitting in public, right here on RWE, that I was wrong and I am now converted. However, I have seen nothing in all the links and documents you and the others have ever posted that is convincing so far.
Then I'm not sure what it would take. Someone to tell you global warming is iron-clad? Or conversely, that the disproof of global warming is iron-clad? You'll never get that in true science. The best you can get are estimations of likelihood. Like the statements from the IPCC and the NAS that there is a high probability ...
Quote:

And yes, I am as skeptical in all other areas as I am in this. My standards are my standards, and in many many fields that claim to have scientific consensus, the evidence just doesn't measure up for me. For example, I do not believe vaccines ever been proven to be effective or safe, despite "scientific" claims to the contrary.
Well, there you have it.
Quote:

I don't want to spiral into another endless GW name-calling session. So that is all I am going to say. Please try not to insult me again, though I fear that is an impossible request.
Where oh where did I call you any names? Where did I do ANYTHING except express an opinion that you are wrong?

PLEASE, if you can't have an adult discussion where people debate their areas of disagreement, then stay off the board.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


FutureMrsFillion,

I have to say, I approve of your taste in your intended.

I was irked, I admit.

PDCharles wrote this:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

Aside from being wrong in his facts (he was mistakenly referring to the same study I was linking), he impugned my integity. Yes, I was irked. And no, it probably wasn't strictly necessary, but then, the icons are there for a reason, I suppose.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:47 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
FutureMrsFillion,

I have to say, I approve of your taste in your intended.

I was irked, I admit.

PDCharles wrote this:
yes Rue...
and there is a 2006 report on the front page of the same site with more recent findings. Guess posting the link at this point would do no good

Aside from being wrong in his facts (he was mistakenly referring to the same study I was linking), he impugned my integity. Yes, I was irked. And no, it probably wasn't strictly necessary, but then, the icons are there for a reason, I suppose.




Rue,

I didn't switch to the dark side all of a sudden.

It was late and I was sleepy and it seems my intent was misinterpreted. I was reading the more recent 2006 article on the very site BDN had posted from, WITH findings suggesting human intensified GW.

I felt it was no need to post that since you had already done so just before I was going to and they just weren't listening. thus the crap emote.
Unfortunately I was unable to immediately respond to your inquiry.

...and thanx FMF. my skin is tougher than 60 grit SP though.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:51 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny how you attempt to project your own shortcomings and faults onto others. I mean, HI-LARIOUSLY funny. I've had countless civil discussions on fff.net, just none w/ YOU. Key word - YOU.

No, AQ It’s hilarious how you do it, constantly but you are too stupid to see it. It’s not just me, that’s just your selective memory, the only people you’ve had anything even approaching a civil discussion with are those that accept your flagrant insults, baiting and character assassinations and treat you with more civility than you treat anyone else at any time. I’m, like many others, not prepared to do that, you nor George Bush’s opinion which is all you spout, are simply not worth the effort. It’s funny how nearly everyone else who ever speaks to you reaches the same conclusion.

Countless civil discussions, i.e. with yourself or someone who agrees with you totally, otherwise you just end up hurling insults, or ever so *politely* baiting them like here.
Quote:

I'll still be here in Sept, though I'll retract that pint I was going to buy you. There are limits to how far Southern hospitality can go.
That's fine, I'm meeting real stand up decent folk there, what makes you think I'd need to drink with a scared aging friendless little toad like you?
Quote:

More mouth and trousers than you can handle.
Like I said Armchair Quarterback, if you want to make good on the threats of physical violence you've made against me in the past I'll be ready and waiting. We both know you won’t, its real easy to threaten people over the net, not so easy face to face, but you wouldn't know that, never having done it. Whatever else I've done, whatever else I am I've never threatened to beat some one up over the internet, your pathetic.

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:16 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.


Yo Citizen, you know that me and AU rarely see eye to eye here, but I don't see him as being a senseless violence-type. I think you're getting worked up over something that ain't gonna go down.
Embrace your Shaolin side, my brother. Don't let him get to ya like that.

Unofficial moderator Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:19 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?

This comes down to personal values, doesn't it? Some believe the "good of the many should outweigh the good of the individual." Others value individual autonomy as a line that shouldn't be crossed, even for the greater good.

But this is different from our original discussion of the scientific merits of global warming. Here we have a disagreement on what IS the public good, let alone how to achieve it. It comes down to another branch of philosophy, epistemology: how do we know what we know? Some people rely on authority: if the IPCC says it is true, it must be true because all those educated people can't be wrong. I, like a lot of folks on this board, prefer empiricism, or replicable observations.

Once you have the observations, there is the question of interpretation. There is a joke about a biologist, physicist, and mathematician riding a train into Scotland. They see a black sheep out on a pasture. The biologist exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black." The physicist corrects, "Well, actually, at least one sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician refines, "No, at least one sheep in Scotland is black, on at least one side."

I interpret data very conservatively, like the mathematician. If I say at least one sheep in Scotland is black, I like to qualify it with, "assuming sheep in Scotland are the same color on both sides." It is nice to have assumptions clearly defined--it increases falsifiability, which is the hallmark of good science.

Like any field studying the immeasurable and unobservable past, climate science makes a lot of assumptions. Most of what I have read about global warming does not clearly define their assumptions and limits. The lines between extrapolation and conjecture and good theory are blurred or sometimes nonexistent. I find myself disagreeing, not with the observations, but with their conclusions as premature and unwarranted--much like I would disagree with the biologist who concluded that the sheep in Scotland are black.

Science and politics don't mix well. Politics wants action right NOW. Science takes too long, so scientists are pressured to rush their conclusions to justify policy. It is more honest to justify policy on merits of value rather than scientific consensus. Talk about 2 men stranded on an island, and admit that it has nothing to do with science. Talk about using less fossil fuel and reducing emissions, because it is good for our economy and our health, and leave climate science (practically still in its infancy) out of it.

Eh, just my opinion. BTW, I appreciate talking to you Emma. You're the first person in a long, long time I've met here who can discuss this topic with both conviction, logic, and respect. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


PDCharles,

OH ! Then I got it your post all wrong! Well, they don't have an apology icon, so how's about this?
Quote:


Rue,

I didn't switch to the dark side all of a sudden.

It was late and I was sleepy and it seems my intent was misinterpreted. I was reading the more recent 2006 article on the very site BDN had posted from, WITH findings suggesting human intensified GW.

I felt it was no need to post that since you had already done so just before I was going to and they just weren't listening. thus the crap emote.
Unfortunately I was unable to immediately respond to your inquiry.

...and thanx FMF. my skin is tougher than 60 grit SP though.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


EmmaRigby:
Quote:

I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?
Mathematically, it's best solved with tit for tat - you mirror the other's actions. Over time, like with evolution, it results in an optimum for both.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

I am reminded of the parable of the two men on a desert island. There is enough food for them both to survive the winter if they both ration themselves but one refuses to do this. What should the other one do?


Kill him, immediately.

Then cook and eat HIM.

Better one survive than neither.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:24 PM

EMMARIGBY


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

There is a joke about a biologist, physicist, and mathematician riding a train into Scotland. They see a black sheep out on a pasture. The biologist exclaims, "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black." The physicist corrects, "Well, actually, at least one sheep in Scotland is black." The mathematician refines, "No, at least one sheep in Scotland is black, on at least one side."
I interpret data very conservatively, like the mathematician. If I say at least one sheep in Scotland is black, I like to qualify it with, "assuming sheep in Scotland are the same color on both sides." It is nice to have assumptions clearly defined--it increases falsifiability, which is the hallmark of good science.

BTW, I appreciate talking to you Emma. You're the first person in a long, long time I've met here who can discuss this topic with both conviction, logic, and respect. Thanks.




I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!

You are right that people should not jump to conclusions on inconclusive or contradictory data. But surely policy descisions should be based on our educated guess at this moment in time and possibly modified in the future as the understanding/ accuracy of predictions increases. Doing nothing to curtail pollution because the concientious of those in the scientific community refuse to be pressured into giving a difinitive answer, to me, like saying "We have found something that looks like a tumour in your body. We don't have the equipment to be sure so we're going to wait a couple of years to see what happens. It might all work out or it might be too late by then but we can't operat now on uncertain data, it would be expensive and painful." Dammit, I'd want that operation! (Sorry, I do love my metaphores!!)

Thanks for the compliment, I always try to remain calm (hint hint) when arguing a point. If someone shouts and swears and calls me a poopy head (or some such) I am not really going to be more inclined to take their arguements seriously!

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:24 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
I object! I would never make such a sweeping statement with such a small sample size! Didn't you see me torture the English language earlier to avoid giving a definite answer as to whether the sky is blue?!

Yes, and I rather enjoyed it too. All right, we can substitute biologist for ummm....climate scientist? Hehe.

I always say science and medicine don't mix either. We hold up drugs for eons and eons to scientifically "prove" that they are effective before we let patients try them. Meanwhile, patients are clamoring, please shouldn't it be my choice if I want to accept the risks of the drug? At the same time, traditional medicines tested by hundred or thousands of years of use (with no patents or profits) are pooh-poohed by "scientists" as being unproven. It's all crazy. People should be able to take whatever medicines they want, whether they have been subjected to double blind placebo controlled trials or not. Provided they are given all available info and risks up front.

With your tumor analogy, it is the same thing. An experienced clinician interprets his observations (be it with symptom description or technological assay) that you have a tumor. This is not "science" per se. This is, well, really an art based on technology and the accumulated experience of the profession. We should just practice the art in the best interests of the patient and dispense with the pretense of conducting science, which serves knowledge and precision, and NOT the patient.

I guess what I am saying is science has been bastardized and its standards corrupted to make it easier and faster for policies to be "based in science." I would rather see science returned to a slow and painstakingly precise process, and stop saying our decisions have gone through the scientific wringer when they haven't.

It is perfectly ok to make decisions that are not scientific. I see 3 people leave a restaurant vomiting. I don't have scientific proof that the restaurant caused the illness, but I can certainly choose not to eat there. I don't have scientific proof that smoking causes cancer, but I can choose not to smoke. And so forth. It doesn't make our choices less valid. In fact, I don't think true science is ever sure enough about anything to validate a policy. It isn't how science works.

In my humble opinion.


Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:30 PM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
OH ! Then I got it your post all wrong! Well, they don't have an apology icon, so how's about this?



No worries and No apologies necessary. but kisses... I'll take 'em

I can see how it could've been taken the other way.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:32 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yo Citizen, you know that me and AU rarely see eye to eye here, but I don't see him as being a senseless violence-type. I think you're getting worked up over something that ain't gonna go down.
Embrace your Shaolin side, my brother. Don't let him get to ya like that.

Unofficial moderator Chrisisall

Yeah I know, children, small animals and any others not able to defend themselves perhaps, but as far as I'm concerned I'm well aware that all AQ's threats are merely hot air.

Cowards and bullies only go for those they know they can beat.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:08 PM

STINKINGROSE



Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.

Or were you joking about my joking?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:17 PM

LISSA37


Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:

Um..it were a joke.
Sorry if I confusticated things. Gotta remember to stick the sarcasm/facetious warning label on stuff.

Or were you joking about my joking?



Is this directed at me? I think so, since I responded to your comment and since I got an e-mail saying you replied to mine. I'm not sure, though, so if you didn't mean me, just ignore this post!

If you do mean me, I did think you seriously read that somewhere, but I also found your comment humorous. Does that make sense? Probably not. Anyway, looking back and rereading, it's pretty clear you were joking. I'm not sure where my mind was that day... I'm not this dumb all the time, I promise.

*****
"I'm a leaf on the wind..." - Wash

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:39 PM

STINKINGROSE


Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 11:32 PM

EMMARIGBY


Quote:

Originally posted by stinkingrose:
Damn I love you guys!
You're amazing!
This is actually 2 separate threads! I've been watching several people end up engaging in a calm reasoned discussion of scientific principles, the reliability of data, and how to best weasel word your findings to get published without ruffling feathers so your funding does not stop (physics widow here) "while..AND AT THE SAME TIME" (to quote Gonzo the Great)ignoring the flame war that has erupted by the people who started the thread in the first place. Are any of you parents?
Remind me not to hit the boards without bringing marshmallows from now on. S'mores for everyone!
You may now resume calling each other poopy head, boys.



What's a good scientific debate without a bit of poop flinging?! It happens at all of the best conferences, it's just as the letters accrue after your name you find more loquatious ways of calling your learned colleagues poopy head.

___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 3:06 AM

CITIZEN


Just to clarify there's a lot of water under the bridge between Armchair Quarterback and I and through continued failed attempts to actually talk to him like a human being I've learnt its a pointless exercise.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


OK. No one has asked he big question yet.

Why are alligators' genitals tucked up into a slit in their bodies?

a)Modesty?

b)Intelligent design?

c)The fact that all the proto-alligators whose dangly bits didn't tuck up had them bitten off by proto-snapping turtles and couldn't reproduce?

d)Use of depleted uranium rounds by the Stegosaurs in the Stegosaurus-Triceratops Wars of the Cretaecous?

e)something else?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Like I said Armchair Quarterback, if you want to make good on the threats of physical violence you've made against me in the past I'll be ready and waiting. We both know you won’t, its real easy to threaten people over the net, not so easy face to face, but you wouldn't know that, never having done it. Whatever else I've done, whatever else I am I've never threatened to beat some one up over the internet, your pathetic.

Just don't bring weapons like some sort of coward.



It's funny to see foreigners use American terms when they have no clue what they're talking about. Armchair quaterback..heh heh. Funny.

a) I've made no threats toward you,and my comments were only in response to threats made by your toward me first. I believe my only comment was " me kicking your ass won't make you any more / less wrong " or words to that effect. Simply stating, violence would NOT prove to be the deciding factor here, nor would it change any of the facts. Take it as you wish.

Quite simply, your claims of any threats is nothing mroe than a strawman scenario based solely on your own delusion. Trying to 'bait' me into a war of words to escalate into childish acts of violence...please.

b ) Yeah, I'm gonna bring a weapon to an AIRPORT....NOT! ROFLOL !! 9/11 happened here, moron, not that I'd bring any weapons anyway....you must have seen Deliverance a few too many times.

" You're " pathetic first.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 11:29 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


b ) Yeah, I'm gonna bring a weapon to an AIRPORT....NOT! ROFLOL !! 9/11 happened here, moron, not that I'd bring any weapons anyway....you must have seen Deliverance a few too many times.


So...do you think Global Warming has had an impact with the area they shot Deliverance in?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:09 PM

EMMARIGBY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. No one has asked he big question yet.

Why are alligators' genitals tucked up into a slit in their bodies?

a)Modesty?

b)Intelligent design?

c)The fact that all the proto-alligators whose dangly bits didn't tuck up had them bitten off by proto-snapping turtles and couldn't reproduce?

d)Use of depleted uranium rounds by the Stegosaurs in the Stegosaurus-Triceratops Wars of the Cretaecous?

e)something else?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Alligators have it sorted. They don't have the stupid sytem of leaving their most importand organ (genetically speaking) dangling naked and vulnerable exposed to the cruel elements. Human males only look as silly as they do because a more sensible mutation hasn't come along yet. Give it a few million years and we may have got the temperature control sysem inside our bodies sorted to the extent that we can do away with dangly bits! (Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?)

In the meantime, heed the sign!


___________________
Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?
I think some support 'intelligent design' as an alternative. Can you believe it? In this day and age.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:45 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by EmmaRigby:
(Sorry, is mentioning evolution considered contraversial here?)


I don't believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Hahaha.... mwahahaha (evil laugh).

I think Rue just ran out vomiting.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
(Yes, I was kidding. Sort of.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Now I'm going to bring in the ad hominem thread at this point - you - you - LUDDITE !



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:54 PM

STINKINGROSE


I'm for being marsupial!! Or at least redesigning the female pelvis and legs to make delivery less dangerous and walking much less damaging on the joints.
'Course I probably don't get a vote...

Maybe if we rigged males up with an internal coolant system we could get the genetic packaging tucked up in safely? Can we rig up the bladder as a water bath?
Future generations could *not* get the reference to males being groined in movies, not that that doesn't hurt women too..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:04 PM

STINKINGROSE


Believe me, it was self evident even to someone who has never seen either of you post before.

That was rather my point.

I was hoping to subtly, using humor, hint that it would be nice if you gentlemen could take the argument outside (start a flame war thread, whatever) and let everyone else continue with their discussion, which I was actually enjoying.

You could try doing what I have done with my uncle whose views I do not concur. I ignore his emails. Just delete 'em right out of existence because I know there is no reasoning with the man. My life is much more peaceful since I tried this approach.

The suggestion came from my mother, who is his sister. It's what *she* does. If we ever get important news from him we're screwed, but that probably won't happen.

I don't know if this site has a moderator, from what I've seen folks tend to be pretty civil to one another without much in the way of argy-bargies. It is one of the things I like about it. People united in support of something and leaving their egos at the door, but not their sense of humor.

Oops, someone's just kicked my soapbox out from under me..time's up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL