XPost: alt.global-warming, sac.politics, alt.survival   
   XPost: aus.politics   
   From: ww84wa@aim.com   
      
   On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:27:49 +1000, Fran wrote:   
      
   >On 25/06/2017 12:50 AM, Wally W. wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:56:49 +1000, Fran wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 23/06/2017 11:29 PM, Wally W. wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:05:14 +1000, Fran wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> As your cite   
   >>>>> says, real climate scientists DO agree about anthropomorhic climate   
   >>>>> change   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Is this an Unum sock/disciple? >   
   >>>> How well schooled are AGW activists who don't know whether the first   
   >>>> letter in their "cause" stands for anthropomorhic or anthropogenic?   
   >>>   
   >>> Not being an AGW activist, then I can't defend adding the wrong ending.   
   >>>   
   >>> But since you only mentioned a hopeful 'gotcha' and didn't mention   
   >>> anything of substance, you clearly got the point.   
   >>   
   >> ***The*** point? You think there was only one?   
   >   
   >Since I had only made one relating to the nitpick you made, then yes it   
   >was THE point that I made.   
      
   That was a clumsy attempt to spin your way out of that one.   
      
   "you clearly got the point" clearly referred to your post from Fri, 23   
   Jun 2017 23:05:14 +1000, not your post from Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:56:49   
   +1000.   
      
   Regardless of how many points you intended to make in the first post,   
   it doesn't prevent informed people from perceiving additional points,   
   possibly relating to the competence of the poster who thought they   
   made only one point.   
      
      
   >> Some display faulty understanding of the cause for which they spew.   
   >   
   >Yes, you showed that with your nitpick because you clearly failed to   
   >comprehend how many points had been made relating to your nitpick, but   
   >you probably can't help being like that.   
      
   What? Maybe you need someone to proofread your posts. Did you post   
   this with the help of a time machine: "with your nitpick because you   
   clearly failed to comprehend how many points had been made relating to   
   your nitpick"?   
      
   Most sane people operate on the basis that effects *follow* causes.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)