Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 First off, there is general (though not unanimous) agreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and human activity can affect it. Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). Jim doesn't need any help but more for my own curiosity. Please point out where Jim has been on the wrong side of the "objective facts" before. Objective is a very loose term - objective in whose view? There is NOT general agreement in the scientific community that GW is real. There is general agreement in the Hollywood community, in the Democratic Party and on The Left ââ¬â but the general agreement in the scientific community is that there is NO SUCH THING as Global Warming . Not one credible scientist? Really? None at all?? It's just Hollywood, the Democratic Party and on "The Left"??? Really???? Not one educated "non-Hollywood" degreed person thinks there might be something to this? Sorry mate, I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist. Please include, in a post in this thread, where Jim Morrison said that he thought, or stated, that Al Gore was a scientist. Cheers! CaoimhÃn P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG I would typically take this off the air but you misspelled "supercede" CaoimhÃn in your reference to professional advise. It is spelled "supersede" - cuz I thought you'd might like to "know". For those following along - Google Strawman arugement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" [:-sonar] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 damn, I had no idea. I've been spelling it wrong my whole life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Hey Terry, don't have to google "strawman arguement" but will google strawman argument. Good point. Not so sure about your spelling correction, that may be a little on the harsh side and not always correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 damn, I had no idea. I've been spelling it wrong my whole life (Me too until recently.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 damn, I had no idea. I've been spelling it wrong my whole life (Me too until recently.) did either of you look it up? now I have to do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Hey Terry, don't have to google "strawman arguement" but will google strawman argument. HA! Now that's funny Les - comeupins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" [:-sonar] There's no danger Mike. Sometimes the Emperor doesn't wear any clothes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Apparently advice is a close second, or maybe Terry intended to use the BBB's preferred spelling. Just so no one accuses me of being a smart ass, I'd like to disclose that I spell checked this post, and made the requisite corrections.[] Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaoimhÃn P. Connell Posted February 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Ya gotta love a good lively debate - pity it doesn't involve beer and cigars. That would make it a perfect debate. CaoimhÃn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Ya gotta love a good lively debate - pity it doesn't involve beer and cigars. That would make it a perfect debate. CaoimhÃn Just answer the questions CaoimhÃn, I'll buy the first round of Cigars and Cognac at it's conclusion. We will start with this one about Jim Morrison: Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). I'm sure you have numerous examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 damn, I had no idea. I've been spelling it wrong my whole life (Me too until recently.) did either of you look it up? now I have to do it! Lol.. well no, I just followed Chad's link, but I had noticed a few weeks ago, via my spell-checker that I had been spelling it wrong for too long. However, according to Funk and Wagnals (formerly of Rowan and Martin's Laugh In fame), it is spelled " S U P E R S E D E " No other spelling in the dictionary apparently. And, for the record, I'm not piling up on anyone, especially not Terry. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to him and glad to see someone found his button. [:-monkeyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaoimhÃn P. Connell Posted February 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Hi Terry ââ¬â Just answer the questions CaoimhÃn, I'll buy the first round of Cigars and Cognac at it's conclusion. OK ââ¬â but you wonââ¬â¢t like it. Please point out where Jim has been on the wrong side of the "objective facts" before. Objective is a very loose term - objective in whose view? ââ¬ÅObjectiveâ⬠Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 First off, there is general (though not unanimous) agreement in the scientific community that Global Warming is real and human activity can affect it. Sorry Jim ââ¬â Youââ¬â¢re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). You didn't answer the question CaoimhÃn I specifically asked you to reference past posts/threads where, as you stated, that Jim was on the wrong side of the objective facts (again). Shouldn't be hard to do. If you accuse him of this you must have specific memory's/examples of this readily at hand. We will start with this one first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist. Cheers! CaoimhÃn P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG This is from another one of your post CaoimhÃn: "I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist." By this statement you infer that Jim, somewhere along the line, made reference to Al Gore. To the best of my recollection Jim never mentioned Al Gores name. Please show us where Jim had mentioned Al Gores name, in reference to "global warming" prior to "outing" him as an Al Gore lover. If you can not show me/us where Jim used Al Gores name in this reference then it is truly a Strawman argument as stated prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Ya gotta love a good lively debate - pity it doesn't involve beer and cigars. That would make it a perfect debate. CaoimhÃn That would be another debate entirely. Personally, I like a peppery cigar with a nice Port. Although it's been so long since I had real cigar it'd probably turn me green. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Hi Terry ââ¬â Just answer the questions CaoimhÃn, I'll buy the first round of Cigars and Cognac at it's conclusion. OK ââ¬â but you wonââ¬â¢t like it. Please point out where Jim has been on the wrong side of the "objective facts" before. Objective is a very loose term - objective in whose view? ââ¬ÅObjectiveâ⬠Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 OK, I've been parsing, sides are drawn, the poles clearly delineated between combatants. No one's budging, near as I can tell. Do we need to go further? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 OK, I've been parsing, sides are drawn, the poles clearly delineated between combatants. No one's budging, near as I can tell. Do we need to go further? Ya, ya we do Kurt. Sometimes we need to go head to head with those that expound based on idyllic gain but not necessarily the truth. Sometimes your idols don't hold the flame test albeit they instill what you want/wish to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Come again......(?)..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 I would typically take this off the air but you misspelled "supercede" CaoimhÃn in your reference to professional advise. It is spelled "supersede" - cuz I thought you'd might like to "know". Well, the green argument aside and to be fair, I think you are both right on this one. CaoimhÃn comes from the other side of the pond where they spell our center as centre, where they spell our mold as mould, etc.. According to my dictionary, supercede has been commonly used to supplant supersede since the 17th century - the 1600's for you folks that have a hard time figuring out how far back that goes - when we were part of the British empire. Supercede is still commonly used in writings today, though some still think it's wrong; kind of like stable and stabile. That means that "supercede" has been used about a hundred years longer than we've been a nation and been able to call ourself "Americans" as opposed to calling ourself British subjects. When I have time and the inclination, I'll often correct misspellings in the posts of folks before they get commented on. However, when it comes to our Canadian and British Isle brethren, I leave well enough alone. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Morrison Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 OK, I've been parsing, sides are drawn, the poles clearly delineated between combatants. No one's budging, near as I can tell. Do we need to go further? CaoimhÃn is supposed to be our resident scientist and he made some pretty extraordinary claims based on an article he read in the (tee-hee-hee) London Daily Mail. He has yet to back those statements up or respond to direct questions. So, yeah, I think so. Save your cigars and beer, CaoimhÃn. I'll just have a few facts, if it's not too much trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 Come again......(?)..... Kurt - I have nothing but the utmost respect for you as construction runs in your veins. Nothing said here is meant as a personal attack. Do not confuse my distaste for a another poser as a frame of reference towards you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 So what does everyone think about cap-and-trade and health care reform? Ummm, not really . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgbinspect Posted February 16, 2010 Report Share Posted February 16, 2010 So what does everyone think about cap-and-trade and health care reform? Ummm, not really . . . "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! [:-sonar] [:-propell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.