March, Dr. Roy Spencer

[Old Rocks]

Why don't you explain why you failed to read Section #3 where the AMS grandfathered in undegreed TV weathermen like Anthony Watts?

 

[edthecynic]

Perhaps you are stupid enough not to accept the reality that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Except, of course, when DittoTards do it.

August 9, 2007
RUSH: I got a note here from our official climatologist Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville. He is a genuine scientist and has been doing some research and he released the research today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Mar 20, 2008
RUSH: As you know, the official climatologist of this program is Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville

February 2, 2010
RUSH: I just got a flash from our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama-Huntsville)

I hate a quote out of context.



The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. 'All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds...'" for those of you in Rio Linda, those are the clouds that look like feathers up there. So, "'as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases,' he said. 'That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space,'" which, in my layman's observation, would mean that the Earth has its own built-in cooling system. How amazing would that be, that the Earth has its own built-in cooling system.



A Dispatch from Roy Spencer

We've had 100 years of warming and the last decade was the warmest in the history of direct instrument measurement, so when is this "built-in cooling system" supposed to kick in????????

 

[gslack]

Why don't you explain why you failed to read Section #3 where the AMS grandfathered in undegreed TV weathermen like Anthony Watts?

Godfathered? LOL tard boy, the man was a AMS sealed meteorologist for 25 years working on the air. The AMS was formed in 1919 and the seal came about in 1920... When did he get godfathered in? Dude you got caught posting a misleading and inaccurate story from sourcewatch. Their own sources told on them.... They rely on you ditto heads to blindly post and not check... And you just showed its effectiveness.

Freaking liar....

The fact is the seal is an accreditation only after meeting the requirements to become a recognized meteorologist. Now we can play this semantics game as long as you want but the hole you dig only gets deeper from here.... Best just go away and save some face now..... TOO PATHETIC!!! LOL

 

[edthecynic]

Look azzhole you kept trying to lie your way out of it pretend I was wrong. The fact is you were wrong, you showed time and again you didn't understand shit and instead of just shutting up and learning something you tried to lie and cover it up in a mountain of BS and semantics.....

Now, you see your ignorance all laid out for you and so do the rest of us.. Go and cry or something, but trying to lie about me or what I said is a bad move..

You're regressing back to infancy.

Best leave me alone punk, I do have more I can place up here to show your ignorance.... I gave you a reprieve but if you are mistaking kindness for weakness I will be happy to continue where I left off...

Please don't stop making a complete fool of yourself on my account.

 

[Old Rocks]

See any degree requirements in this statement?

AMS Certification Programs

The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded.

Do you see any degree requierements here? Watts never has had a degree. He is just a TV Weatherman, not a Meteorologists.


NAME) Earns the AMS Seal of Approval

(City, State): (Name) of (Station) has been awarded the Seal of Approval of the American Meteorological Society in recognition of the quality of (his/her) (television/radio) weather broadcasts.
The Seal is awarded by the Society to broadcast meteorologists who meet established criteria for scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather presentations. Among radio and television meteorologists, the Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction and a recognition of achievement in the communication of scientific information.
To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.
Sealholders are highly respected among their peers. Professional meteorologists have confidence that weather presentations made by sealholders will be technically sound and responsibly delivered. The general public can have equal confidence in the quality and reliability of weather presentations made by broadcast meteorologists approved by the Society.
The American Meteorological Society was founded in 1919 as a nonprofit scientific and professional society. It is interdisciplinary in scope and actively promotes the development and dissemination of information of the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences. The Society currently has over 10,000 members from the United States, Canada and over 100 countries internationally.

 

[gslack]

See any degree requirements in this statement?

AMS Certification Programs

The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded.

Do you see any degree requierements here? Watts never has had a degree. He is just a TV Weatherman, not a Meteorologists.


NAME) Earns the AMS Seal of Approval

(City, State): (Name) of (Station) has been awarded the Seal of Approval of the American Meteorological Society in recognition of the quality of (his/her) (television/radio) weather broadcasts.
The Seal is awarded by the Society to broadcast meteorologists who meet established criteria for scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather presentations. Among radio and television meteorologists, the Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction and a recognition of achievement in the communication of scientific information.
To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application is judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.
Sealholders are highly respected among their peers. Professional meteorologists have confidence that weather presentations made by sealholders will be technically sound and responsibly delivered. The general public can have equal confidence in the quality and reliability of weather presentations made by broadcast meteorologists approved by the Society.
The American Meteorological Society was founded in 1919 as a nonprofit scientific and professional society. It is interdisciplinary in scope and actively promotes the development and dissemination of information of the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences. The Society currently has over 10,000 members from the United States, Canada and over 100 countries internationally.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA! why don't you cite the requirements? You have the link douche bag I gave it to you....

LOL, the requirements...

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

HAHAHAHAA! keep lying douchebag....

 

[gslack]

You're regressing back to infancy.

Best leave me alone punk, I do have more I can place up here to show your ignorance.... I gave you a reprieve but if you are mistaking kindness for weakness I will be happy to continue where I left off...

Please don't stop making a complete fool of yourself on my account.

Weasel no ones talking to your ignorant snot nosed azz anymore I already showed your stupidity....

This is the last time I warn you idiot.... One more of your snotty little childish quips from the side and I continue the recital of your ignorant postings....

 

[Old Rocks]

Adolescent for sure.

 

[edthecynic]

Best leave me alone punk, I do have more I can place up here to show your ignorance.... I gave you a reprieve but if you are mistaking kindness for weakness I will be happy to continue where I left off...

Please don't stop making a complete fool of yourself on my account.

Weasel no ones talking to your ignorant snot nosed azz anymore I already showed your stupidity....

This is the last time I warn you idiot.... One more of your snotty little childish quips from the side and I continue the recital of your ignorant postings....

Fire away, child.

 

[gslack]

OKAY, you want to try and hide behind semantics? Bad move dumazz, now I have to embarrass you with your own semantical bullshit...

Your chosen definition..... Correct?



That was your chosen definition you posted here to try and counter mine correct? Well of course it is I quoted your post.... Fine moving on....

look carefully where I underlined and made the type bold. What does that say?

Come on coward say it.... It says "anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average."

hmm... thats odd they use the word "average" there don't they.. An average of what? Why according to your chart an average of 20-30 years temperatures on each station. Wait, didn't I say that before? Why yes I did several fucking times!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html

And the funny part is I repeated the very words you used and you tried to say I was wrong in that...

YOUR INITIAL CLAIM...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200761-post50.html
"...an average of usually 20 to 30 years FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is used as the BASE and any DEVIATION from that average FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is recorded as the anomaly."


MY REPLY...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html
"...an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station."


YOUR ARGUMENT...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2201178-post52.html
"The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station."


Now show me difference azzhole.... There is none and all your BS is shown in all its glory for the entire forum to see... You just argued your own claim to try and cover up your stupidity in a pile of shit.... You are busted flat out and undeniably busted....

Now stop trying to BS your way around this and save yourself any further embarrassment, it will only get worse for you here on out. This is indefensible and everyone can see it....

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

oldsocks little brother here wanted more....

 

[Charles Stucker]

So, have you been hacking the e-mails between Al Gore and myself?

Blah, Blah, Blah.
How much have you, PERSONALLY, reduced consumption to combat GoreBull Warming (TM)?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer is "not in the least."
That makes YOU a fraud.

You do not know me, and I don't know you. And prefer to keep it that way, given the intellectual content of your posts.

So your statements concerning what I have or have not done are just BS. Same as the rest of your statements on this board have been.

Please, as if. In another thread you out and out stated that you have a license to consume because you have gone "green" using a personal windmill and blah, blah, blah, after I asked how much you had reduced consumption. While I concede you are a facile liar that does not change the demonstrable truth about Al Gore, founder of the GoreBull Warming scam. Herr GoreBull consumes without restraint while asking others to conserve. His entire film was not to support conservation, but to support his '08 presidential bid. I suppose that particular truth is too inconvenient for you.

 

[edthecynic]

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html


Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

oldsocks little brother here wanted more....

Looks like the same whining BS. What's new, crybaby?

 

[gslack]

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html


Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html


Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

oldsocks little brother here wanted more....

Looks like the same whining BS. What's new, crybaby?

Dude I have been waiting for some excuse, some reasoning, some kind of logic or something you have to excuse the crap you pulled as evidenced in the above quoted and earlier post, and you have yet to say anything about it..

SO whats the excuse? You were temporarily insane? Come on little fella don't be a baby now tell us what happened....

 

[edthecynic]

Please don't stop making a complete fool of yourself on my account.

Weasel no ones talking to your ignorant snot nosed azz anymore I already showed your stupidity....

This is the last time I warn you idiot.... One more of your snotty little childish quips from the side and I continue the recital of your ignorant postings....

Fire away, child.

oldsocks little brother here wanted more....

Looks like the same whining BS. What's new, crybaby?

Dude I have been waiting for some excuse, some reasoning, some kind of logic or something you have to excuse the crap you pulled as evidenced in the above quoted and earlier post, and you have yet to say anything about it..

SO whats the excuse? You were temporarily insane? Come on little fella don't be a baby now tell us what happened....

It's hard to believe you can make yourself look any more foolish, but somehow you manage to do it with each new post.

Keep up the good work!

 

[gslack]

Weasel no ones talking to your ignorant snot nosed azz anymore I already showed your stupidity....

This is the last time I warn you idiot.... One more of your snotty little childish quips from the side and I continue the recital of your ignorant postings....

Fire away, child.

Looks like the same whining BS. What's new, crybaby?

Dude I have been waiting for some excuse, some reasoning, some kind of logic or something you have to excuse the crap you pulled as evidenced in the above quoted and earlier post, and you have yet to say anything about it..

SO whats the excuse? You were temporarily insane? Come on little fella don't be a baby now tell us what happened....

It's hard to believe you can make yourself look any more foolish, but somehow you manage to do it with each new post.

Keep up the good work!

Nice little bit of posturing buddy... Now what happened to all your big talk earlier? LOL, come on you can say it..... I spanked you and now you are pouting..... LOL

 

[edthecynic]

Weasel no ones talking to your ignorant snot nosed azz anymore I already showed your stupidity....

This is the last time I warn you idiot.... One more of your snotty little childish quips from the side and I continue the recital of your ignorant postings....

Fire away, child.

Looks like the same whining BS. What's new, crybaby?

Dude I have been waiting for some excuse, some reasoning, some kind of logic or something you have to excuse the crap you pulled as evidenced in the above quoted and earlier post, and you have yet to say anything about it..

SO whats the excuse? You were temporarily insane? Come on little fella don't be a baby now tell us what happened....

It's hard to believe you can make yourself look any more foolish, but somehow you manage to do it with each new post.

Keep up the good work!

Nice little bit of posturing buddy... Now what happened to all your big talk earlier? LOL, come on you can say it..... I spanked you and now you are pouting..... LOL

Just when i think you can't make yourself look any more stupid, you outdo yourself again.

Congratulations!

 

[gslack]

Fire away, child.

It's hard to believe you can make yourself look any more foolish, but somehow you manage to do it with each new post.

Keep up the good work!

Nice little bit of posturing buddy... Now what happened to all your big talk earlier? LOL, come on you can say it..... I spanked you and now you are pouting..... LOL

Just when i think you can't make yourself look any more stupid, you outdo yourself again.

Congratulations!

AWWW come on wuss tell us about anomalies again ....HAHHAHAHAH!