XPost: alt.global-warming, sac.politics, alt.survival   
   XPost: aus.politics   
   From: ww84wa@aim.com   
      
   On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:31:37 +1000, Fran wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   So you were saying I got the point of my own post?   
      
   That spin attempt doesn't pass any kind of smell test.   
      
      
      
   >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)