Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
[QUOTE=The_Waco_Kid;1058189453][QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105818897 5]
your problem is obvious., you have your head up your ass. yeah i inherited money. did you? so sorry your parents were poor. not my problem.
and by the way, i do make a lot of money. on top of what i inherited. which i prudently invested
in 10 years i'm on track to be a millionaire, can you make the same claim?
stick to the topic of this thread. Global climate change is a scam. it's a fraud ,
they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the immortal, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" so after you define the portion of the thread you are talking about and you get a response derived from that portion you don't have to eat another mis-stated post
QUOTE]
4500+ posts and you don't know how it's done or understand the logic of doing it this way. There are many other processes that work besides this one. You seldom use any of them.
I'll type slow for you.
A thread contains posts. The first post is called the OP. The OP is submitted by the thread starter and contains the original topic(s).
Because threads can contain many pieces of information, most people hit the ""quote" button which includes the post you are replying to.
That's where you discuss, challenge information with no links, ask and answer questions. And of course we hurl our insults (Does the truth insult? Is a statement that is true an insult? Should it be? Has wacko ever sucked a dick bigger than mine?).
If you are responding to several quotes you use.....that's right! Multi quotes.
So if you post something that will be questioned, including a link to the info is a good idea. In the interest of discussion, answer questions (that are germane to the post).
Someone who dodges or ignores valid questions about a topic or claims they've made is the classic "cause I say so" douche-bag or the asshole who claims something is there for all to see but they can't explain it. These losers numbers have leaped due to the internet. The societal recluses are that way for a reason
But I digress.
If you reference a specific post in the thread and it's attached links such as wacko's post containing "they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the response (partial), "Nothing in the OP has furthered the cause of the "climate change" deniers. There is no new scientific information in the articles because it's mostly about what changes global economics might go through, trying to figure out models to predict directions things might go. It is an editorial. An opinion. It actually proves nothing. You agreeing with it adds no weight to its validity.
Remember we discussed you being unable to tell opinion from fact? Good example right here" don't squeal like a 9 year old girl, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" and pretend you suddenly don't know exactly which articles and posts are being talked about. It highlights your already exposed lack of credibility and habit of lying (examples available on request)
The number of lofted serves you've made which are returned with the ball embedding itself in your chest or the huge number of unforced errors tells the tale of your life. Go dry your new vagina and suck your "Uncle" Phil's dick
your problem is obvious., you have your head up your ass. yeah i inherited money. did you? so sorry your parents were poor. not my problem.
and by the way, i do make a lot of money. on top of what i inherited. which i prudently invested
in 10 years i'm on track to be a millionaire, can you make the same claim?
stick to the topic of this thread. Global climate change is a scam. it's a fraud ,
they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the immortal, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" so after you define the portion of the thread you are talking about and you get a response derived from that portion you don't have to eat another mis-stated post
QUOTE]
4500+ posts and you don't know how it's done or understand the logic of doing it this way. There are many other processes that work besides this one. You seldom use any of them.
I'll type slow for you.
A thread contains posts. The first post is called the OP. The OP is submitted by the thread starter and contains the original topic(s).
Because threads can contain many pieces of information, most people hit the ""quote" button which includes the post you are replying to.
That's where you discuss, challenge information with no links, ask and answer questions. And of course we hurl our insults (Does the truth insult? Is a statement that is true an insult? Should it be? Has wacko ever sucked a dick bigger than mine?).
If you are responding to several quotes you use.....that's right! Multi quotes.
So if you post something that will be questioned, including a link to the info is a good idea. In the interest of discussion, answer questions (that are germane to the post).
Someone who dodges or ignores valid questions about a topic or claims they've made is the classic "cause I say so" douche-bag or the asshole who claims something is there for all to see but they can't explain it. These losers numbers have leaped due to the internet. The societal recluses are that way for a reason
But I digress.
If you reference a specific post in the thread and it's attached links such as wacko's post containing "they the arrogant punks at the UN admit it. read my very first post in this thread dick for brains" and the response (partial), "Nothing in the OP has furthered the cause of the "climate change" deniers. There is no new scientific information in the articles because it's mostly about what changes global economics might go through, trying to figure out models to predict directions things might go. It is an editorial. An opinion. It actually proves nothing. You agreeing with it adds no weight to its validity.
Remember we discussed you being unable to tell opinion from fact? Good example right here" don't squeal like a 9 year old girl, say "this thread is full of articles, not related to economic models, that dispute climate change" and pretend you suddenly don't know exactly which articles and posts are being talked about. It highlights your already exposed lack of credibility and habit of lying (examples available on request)
The number of lofted serves you've made which are returned with the ball embedding itself in your chest or the huge number of unforced errors tells the tale of your life. Go dry your new vagina and suck your "Uncle" Phil's dick
3,264 posts and you are still an idiot dickmuncher. post something, anything that proves your point. i've posted more than enough to prove mine. dickmuncher.
[COLOR=#444444][FONT=Times New Roman]your problem is obvious., you have your head up your ass. yeah i inherited money. did you? so sorry your parents were poor. not my problem.
and by the way, i do make a lot of money. on top of what i inherited. which i prudently invested
in 10 years i'm on track to be a millionaire, can you make the same claim?
Manassmuncher, pulls out the "Millionaire" card...
3,264 posts and you are still an idiot dickmuncher. post something, anything that proves your point. i've posted more than enough to prove mine. dickmuncher.
You're a denier. No matter what information anyone posts, you claim it means nothing. While you post information that can be refuted by many sources, you refute by calling people idiots.
A quick example.
In post 585 I posted a link/content that refuted a post by j douche. He had included numerous factually incorrect components in his post, no links of course.
The article I posted contained information about the formation and other facts about the ozone hole that appears over Antarctica. Mostly measurements and a time line. You refuted my post with,
you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.
anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.
In one fell swoop, on your word alone and without any information on why you would say something like that, you try to eliminate one of the preeminent sources on atmospheric conditions in the world.
In your next post you astutely explain why NASA is tainted and that posting anything by them is airing my political views.
this is a thread about climate change. go post your political views somewhere else.
oh wait this is the Political Forum ahahah
can you stay on topic? or is that too much to ask? munchface?
NASA know who butters its bread boy. the Government, the same Government yelling "Climate Change .. Climate Change!!"
They have the specialized equipment to take readings and such. Their weather analysis is limited. You ignore the observations of some of the best scientists in the US as well as the world because you think they are like you. That they would sell out. NASA doesn't have large funding cuts come along without years of warnings
Forget the fact the ozone layer is part of the climate change dialog (topic) besides the fact my post was in response to one before it you cocksucking piece of shit.
So we're back to my premise that you can't tell opinion from fact. You haven't shown a single fact it doesn't exist let alone it's a scam.
The fact you try to keep this thread going proves what an asshole you are. When someone posts information that is linked to a credible source you attack the poster, not the information. Because that's all you can do.
What else have you got?
Besides hemorrhoids and herpes?
You're a denier. No matter what information anyone posts, you claim it means nothing. While you post information that can be refuted by many sources, you refute by calling people idiots.
i refute by posting links, a great deal of them in this thread. what does that mean? it means that at the very least, there is no such thing as overwhelming scientific agreement on this subject. the 97% myth ... refuted!
A quick example.
In post 585 I posted a link/content that refuted a post by j douche. He had included numerous factually incorrect components in his post, no links of course.
The article I posted contained information about the formation and other facts about the ozone hole that appears over Antarctica. Mostly measurements and a time line. You refuted my post with,
you quote garbage from gigo sources. GIGO=GarbageInGarbageOut.
anything NASA says is tainted. if you believe it, you are tainted. Idiot.
In one fell swoop, on your word alone and without any information on why you would say something like that, you try to eliminate one of the preeminent sources on atmospheric conditions in the world.
In your next post you astutely explain why NASA is tainted and that posting anything by them is airing my political views.
this is a thread about climate change. go post your political views somewhere else.
oh wait this is the Political Forum ahahah
can you stay on topic? or is that too much to ask? munchface?
NASA know who butters its bread boy. the Government, the same Government yelling "Climate Change .. Climate Change!!"
They have the specialized equipment to take readings and such. Their weather analysis is limited. You ignore the observations of some of the best scientists in the US as well as the world because you think they are like you. That they would sell out. NASA doesn't have large funding cuts come along without years of warnings
so NASA is the end all be all on this debate? right!! there are many other well funded and reputable groups studying this issue, why should NASA's work be held higher than others? just because they are NASA?
Forget the fact the ozone layer is part of the climate change dialog (topic) besides the fact my post was in response to one before it you cocksucking piece of shit.
So we're back to my premise that you can't tell opinion from fact. You haven't shown a single fact it doesn't exist let alone it's a scam.
The fact you try to keep this thread going proves what an asshole you are. When someone posts information that is linked to a credible source you attack the poster, not the information. Because that's all you can do.
if you don't like the threads i start, don't post in them. go start one of your own. you do know how don't you??
like assup says .. with one click .. SNICK! NARF!
What else have you got?
Besides hemorrhoids and herpes?
Thank you for pointing out only a pussy would play that card. As well as proving you're not too smart.
Sorry douche-bag.
The wacko cunt played that card.
not really, you got a lot of that from an entirely different thread on Obama's economy, it wasn't even directed at you. you must be grasping at dingle berries to go to such efforts to deflect.
