XPost: alt.global-warming, sac.politics, alt.survival   
   XPost: aus.politics   
   From: franhatesnymshifters@loonynutters.com   
      
   On 25/06/2017 10:44 AM, Wally W. wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Certainly not as clumsy as the following attempt:   
   > "you clearly got the point"   
      
   which is what I wrote about YOUR post, not any post of mine   
      
   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.   
      
   No boofhead.  I was referring to YOUR post about my use of a word with   
   the wrong ending.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   You commented on one thing - a wrong ended.  I agreed that I got the   
   ending of a single word wrong.  What you think you 'percive' is just a   
   fantasy on your part.   
   >   
   >>> 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"?   
      
   Here is your nitpick boofhead:   
   "How well schooled are AGW activists who don't know whether the first   
   letter in their "cause" stands for anthropomorhic or anthropogenic?"   
      
   I used the wrong word and I agreed.  Now go away and try to grow up.   
      
   >   
   > 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)