So the Oceans are rising are they?

[IanC]

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

konradv said---"If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?"

exactly!!!!!! that is what skeptics and lukewarmers have been saying! why do the AGW alarmists lie and exaggerate if their evidence is so strong?!?

Answer my question first. That's a lie in itself. You ignore my post message in order to turn it around and push your own agenda. The lies all come from the the skeptic side, IMO. What you call lies are either failures to understand or deliberate attempts to cloud the issues AGW believers present. Look what we have on this board. Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies. It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

what question am I ignoring? that foolish claims have been made on this message board by both sides? the CAGW side has had 25 years, the vast majority of funding for research and media support to prove its case. after appearing to come close a few years ago their evidence is falling to pieces now. why? because it was never really there. exaggerations and unfounded opinions are daily shown to be false and many of the public are pissed that the wool was pulled over their eyes.

I am willing to discuss any topic but only if you are willing to make some attempt to understand the many other sides to this subject.

 

[wirebender]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

The dishonesty is all yours. If it isn't then provide the hard, observed evidence to support the greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Here are some links to pronouncements by your side that the sun is not causing climate change or at best, a very small bit of the change that your climate models predict.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'No Sun link' to climate change

'Sun not responsible for climate change' - Telegraph

Climate Change: It Is Not the Sun « Lean Left

It&#8217;s likely not the <em>primary</em> cause | Grist

Nobel-winning climate change scientist speaks at Expo Center tonight | OregonLive.com

It's still not the sun, stupid : A Few Things Ill Considered

 

[konradv]

Except that no one has said that the sun has nothing to do with climate. If your position is so strong, why do you have to lie?

Maybe you should take some time to read the proclamations of your priests. They routinely pshaw any statement that suggests that 20th century warming is mainly influenced by the sun. They, at most, give the sun a very minor role in the climate.

But, but, but... YOU said they said it had NO role!!! Are you backtracking? What else is just made-up BS? Oh yeah, your lie about CO2 not being a GHG.

 

[konradv]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

Another lie!!! A mechanism HAS been posted. It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. NEXT?

 

[wirebender]

But, but, but... YOU said they said it had NO role!!! Are you backtracking? What else is just made-up BS? Oh yeah, your lie about CO2 not being a GHG.

Did you read the titles to the references I provided?

"No Sun link' to climate change"

"Sun not responsible for climate change"

"Climate Change, It's Still Not the Sun"

"It's Still Not the Sun Stupid"

Which one of those titles suggests that they acknowledge a connection between the climate and the sun? If picking nits is the best you can do, then you have lost, and lost terribly.

You will find that calling me a liar is pointless and stupid. I rarely say anything that I can't back up. As you can see above, your people clearly claim that the sun is not responsible for climate change.

 

[wirebender]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

Another lie!!! A mechanism HAS been posted. It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. NEXT?

You lose again guy. Don't show up to an inellectual gunfight armed with a nail file.

Why lie when you have to know that you will be called on it. I clearly stated that CO2 has no mechanism by which to absorb and retain or trap IR energy. Were the words I used to big and complicated for you to understand. As I have repeatedly explained to you, the emission spectra of CO2 proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is immediately emitted. No trapping of heat or energy is possible.

Now, if it is in your nature, acknowledge that you mischaracterized my statement in a juvenile attempt to dodge the challenge put before you, or man up and provide the evidence that CO2 can absorb and retain energy as you have claimed. Or do the predictable thing and prove your impotence by engaging in some juvenile name calling and dodge the issue entirely. That seems to be your favorite tactic when you are called on anything.

 

[IanC]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

Another lie!!! A mechanism HAS been posted. It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. NEXT?

konradv- CO2 slows down one avenue of escaping heat, infrared radiation. there are other ways to move heat, conduction, reflection and (mostly) convection. no reasonable person is saying that CO2 has no part, just that CO2 is a much smaller part than many think and that it is highly unlikely that water based feedbacks are positive. wirebender brings up an important point, that many climate scientists and organizations have dismissed solar variability as a principal cause of warming because the simplistic solar imputs into climate models are insufficient to generate enough impact. Is that the Sun's fault or perhaps the modeller's?

there are many known factors involved with climate and probably just as many unknown ones. you are focussed on one aspect and refuse to even look at the much larger picture.

 

[skookerasbil]

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

Another lie!!! A mechanism HAS been posted. It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. NEXT?

You lose again guy. Don't show up to an inellectual gunfight armed with a nail file.

Wire bro............laugh...........my..........balls.............off. You gotta give them credit though. They show up with their nail files every day.............and God bless them.

 

[polarbear]

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

I showed You these pictures more than once, in quite a few of the other "Global Warming threads"...
And so far neither You nor the other "arctic experts" or the ones that keep quoting these "experts" have had any comments other than crap like that

Your responses to REAL MATH & Science are also always the "sam-o"
But that`s Okay with me, because You did admit that You know nothing about science...
I just wonder how someone like You could then possibly make these judgement calls You keep making which is real science and which is just plain bullshit...

You don`t need to know shit about science if You see what is in these pictures I posted...
I wonder then how limited the mind-set of a person has to be not to realize what these pictures of the facts on the ground in the high arctic should tell even a child...
....only to comment:

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

Alright then so in Your expert millwright scholarly opinion it follows if I change "just" 2 words the same can be said about history books..

Egad,Lieutenant Adolphus Greely , are you sure that your reports have enough BS in it?

Seems to me, that aside from being totally ignorant about math or science in general, You are also totally ignorant of history in general.
You call Yourself an American and yet You don`t even know shit about the history of You own country and who achieved what, when and where..

Let`s start here..:

The British Arctic Expedition of 1875-1876, led by Sir George Strong Nares, was sent by the British Admiralty to attempt to reach the North Pole via Smith Sound. Two ships, HMS Alert and HMS Discovery (captained by Henry Frederick Stephenson), sailed from Portsmouth on 29 May 1875. Although the expedition failed to reach the North Pole, the coasts of Greenland and Ellesmere Island were extensively explored and large amounts of scientific data were collected.

Till now You had not even a ******* clue why the Nares Strait is called Nares Strait...no matter how many pictures I showed you..

And when I showed You the pictures I took at the Nares Strait and said it was always open for ships..even wooden sail-ships You comment...:

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

So let` check in the history books what they have on the Nares Strait, Fort Conger, CFS Alert and Ellesmere Island...:

Parks Canada - Quttinirpaaq National Park - Cultural Heritage

Pre-Contact History

It is believed that the Paleo-Eskimos of the Independence I culture (2000 &#8211; 4000 B.C.) were the first to arrive in Quttinirpaaq after crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia. Their campsites in the park, characterized by box-shaped hearths, tell us that their numbers were low and that they only occupied the area for 300 &#8211; 400 years. These people hunted muskox and caribou and survived the long dark arctic winters with very little that could be used to produce heat.

For many centuries afterward, it appears no humans lived on Quttinirpaaq. Then about 3000 years ago, a second wave of Paleo-Eskimo people, the Independence II culture (1000 &#8211; 500 B.C.) migrated across the arctic islands and reached Quttinirpaaq. A third distinct culture, the Dorset culture (A.D.800 &#8211; A.D.1000), endured on Quttinirpaaq until about a 1000 years ago. They in turn were supplanted by the Thule people who were skillful hunters of whales and other marine mammals. While the Thule culture survived elsewhere in the arctic, Quttinirpaaq was abandoned by the Thule as the climate became colder leading up to the Little Ice Age (A.D.1600 &#8211; 1850).

So, "Old Rocks"...as a scholarly millwright, which of these 2 statemnts has more bullshit in it ...

The history book, or "Your real science"..:

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science

Phil Jones&#8217; email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to &#8220;hide the decline in global temperatures&#8221;. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn&#8217;t make this error &#8211; he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

Aha...so in your "climate science" only trees up to a certain latitude North count as "reliable" and south from that only trees before 1960 are "scientific evidence"...
And in You expert millwright scholarly opinion the history book and my posts, including this one are ...:

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

Let`s explore some more "bullshit" history books, Wikipedia`s posts have the same "bullshit" as my posts, see...:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/HMS_Alert.jpg/300px-HMS_Alert.jpg

On this expedition, Nares became the first explorer to take his ships all the way north through the channel between Greenland and Ellesmere Island (now named Nares Strait in his honour) to the Lincoln Sea.

So why don`t You get a climatology map and look it up where he sailed his wooden ships.
I bet You still don`t even know where CFS Alert is, and why we call that northern most base on this planet "Alert"..

and I also bet not a single one of these **** head idiots You keep quoting knows shit about it either...
Every one of us military "cable guys" do...we have even display cases of all the stuff we found the crew of HMS Alert left behind where we built our base...:

I could have made a fortune selling what I found to...:
arctic.noaa.gov/
All they have in their museum are pictures of the expedition...:
And their museum is full of the same ..as You say...:

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

...bullshit as the posts and the stuff I`ve been showing since I registered as a user in this forum...:

And here is a picture I took when I walked into that same shack at Fort Conger..:

Of course, I had a lot less trouble getting there because us military cable guys have to go there and everywhere anyways...:

To check on our "cable guy" equipment...:

None of us "cable guys" pulled a hoax here, this "Inukchuk"is genuine and Lord only knows for how many 1000 years it`s been there...

It is believed that the Paleo-Eskimos of the Independence I culture (2000 &#8211; 4000 B.C.) were the first to arrive in Quttinirpaaq after crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia. Their campsites in the park, characterized by box-shaped hearths, tell us that their numbers were low and that they only occupied the area for 300 &#8211; 400 years. These people hunted muskox and caribou and survived the long dark arctic winters with very little that could be used to produce heat.

Let`s get back to "the full of bullshit arctic.noaa.gov

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/US-LFB-P4.htm

Game stand, Fort Conger, Grinnell Land. SS Proteus in harbor. Lady Franklin Bay Expedition, 1881-1884
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/images/B-91121.JPG

Here is a close-up of what`s hanging off the game-stand...:

So I guess, it`s not only the trees...:

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science

This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

In "climate science" we also have a "little divergence problem" with ducks too..

I`ld say we have a little divergence problem with reality in general..

Here are some more pictures I took around Fort Conger..:

The grass is still there, but they must have killed all the ducks that where there ~ 1870-, I never saw one on any of the many trips I did to Fort Conger..
But we found massive trees just a few inches under the soil,...tree trunks everywhere and in some areas there were forests, judging by the number of stumps per area..

Let`s see what else...

Egad,Lieutenant Adolphus Greely , are you sure that your reports have enough BS in it?

Like what he recorded on his maps..:

Look at all the "bullshit rivers" and "bullshit Lakes"...

They are EXACTLY the same bullshit rivers and Lakes as in ...:

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

The only difference is, that if You squint, You can see the "cable guys" air taxi at the shore
Of course we must apply the same climate science religious dogma again...:

This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

So, it`s not just the trees and the ducks, we also have a divergence problem with grasslands, rivers and Lakes that have no business being there when Lieut.Greely drew his maps..

I have told You on my very first posts, that it hardly ever snows there...and it`s natural that most of this area is bare,...no snow...

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

So let` see what Lieut. Greely recorded ...hey his report is full of the same "bullshit" he wrote on his map..

Bare Hills, ~ 2 -3000 ft. elev. intersected by many ravines

His "bullshit"...:

My bullshit...:

I`m just yanking your chain "Old Rocks" I don`t really give a **** what You believe or what kind of shit for brains dumb ass comments Yo make..

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/ipy-1/History.htm

&#8220;But whatever interest all these observations may possess, they do not possess that scientific value, even supported by a long column of figures, which under other circumstances might have been the case. They only furnish us with a picture of the extreme effects of the forces of Nature in the Arctic regions, but leave us completely in the dark with respect to their causes.&#8221;

And today we have a lot of utter morons who don`t need facts and figures...

Egad, Bipolar, are you sure that your post has enough BS in it?

This para-phrase of C.Weyprecht describes exactly the arrogance and utter stupidity of You and all the other liberal morons :

all "non climate scientists" are not real scientists "they do not possess that scientific value, They only furnish us with a picture of the extreme effects of the forces of Nature in the Arctic regions, and only we the climatologists are completely enlightened with respect to their causes.&#8221;

John Cook Hides The Decline In Scientific Integrity | Real Science

Phil Jones&#8217; email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to &#8220;hide the decline in global temperatures&#8221;. This is incorrect. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. However, Muller doesn&#8217;t make this error &#8211; he clearly understands that global temperatures have been rising in recent decades as indicated by the instrumental record.
Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature, and hence tree-ring width and density is used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the &#8220;divergence problem&#8221;. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

They don`t "just" have a "divergence problem" with facts and reality, ..

They truly did go, where no man has gone before....they`ve gone to all the way to Absurdistan

 

[wirebender]

konradv- CO2 slows down one avenue of escaping heat, infrared radiation. there are other ways to move heat, conduction, reflection and (mostly) convection. no reasonable person is saying that CO2 has no part, just that CO2 is a much smaller part than many think and that it is highly unlikely that water based feedbacks are positive.

I don't acknowledge that CO2 is able to slow down heat escaping from the atmosphere any more than any other gas that absorbs and emits IR. In an open atmosphere, any gas that absorbs and emitts IR serves to increase the scattering of IR, not the consentration of it. That is precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse gas hypothesis suggests. By serving to diffuse IR, socalled greenhouse gasses, in reality, serve to cool the atmosphere during the daytime, not slow the escape of heat.

You can verify that statement by looking at the moon. It is roughly the same distance from the sun as the earth and therefore recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter as the earth but has no "greenhouse" gasses present. In fact, it has no atmosphere at all. Compare the daytime temperature of the moon to the daytime temperature anywhere on earth and then make a rational case for the idea that greenhouse gasses serve to warm the earth.

The atmosphere does serve to slow heat loss at night, but in no way is it able to warm the earth. Consider for just a second, how hot each of the 400 molecules of CO2 would have to get in order to effectivlely raise the other 999,600 surrounding molecules in each "part" of air by even a tiny fraction of a degree; while at all times convection is carrying the heat to ever higher altitudes.

No, CO2 does not slow the escape of heat during daylight hours. It, along with the other gasses in the atmosphere serve to keep the earth from buring up in the face of the sun. As to the night time effects of the atmosphere, simply consider why climate models do not factor in the rotation of the earth. It is the presence of humidity in the atmosphere that provides most of the "blanket" effect attributed to the atmosphere. This is easily observable by picking two points along the same line of lattitude at roughly the same altitude; one coastal, one desert. At night, the coastal area cools much more slowly than the desert area due to the difference in relative humidity.

I appreciate your comments in an effort to explain to konradv, but if I thought that CO2 served to slow down the escape of IR energy from the sun, I would have stated as much. If CO2, or any other gas served to slow down the escape of IR escaping from the atmosphere, during daylight hours, the surface of the earth would be hotter than the surface of the moon during dayling hours.

Water vapor is the only gas found in our atmosphere that can absorb and retain IR energy but water vapor, due to the phase changing nature of water absorbs heat without actually warming its surroundings. I have already provided an explanation to konradv regarding this trick that water can perform at this link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3528156-post96.html

 

[westwall]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

Another lie!!! A mechanism HAS been posted. It's something EASILY demonstrated in a lab. Anyone with a spectrophotometer can show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. NEXT?

No, it doesn't. The "experiment" that was posted (and I'm being very kind in calling it that) has no controls, and in fact allows massive external intrusion into the experiment, something that a scientist (well a good scientist) realises invalidates any results obtained.
The only thing being demonstrated in the "experiment" was the various gas laws, not how CO2 traps energy (which it can't).

I showed this to you months ago and even showed you the gas laws that were in actual fact being demonstrated but as usual you ignored that and here you are yet again calling someone a liar when you know very well that it is you who is the intellectually dishonest person involved in the discussion.

Typical.

 

[wirebender]

No, it doesn't. The "experiment" that was posted (and I'm being very kind in calling it that) has no controls, and in fact allows massive external intrusion into the experiment, something that a scientist (well a good scientist) realises invalidates any results obtained.
The only thing being demonstrated in the "experiment" was the various gas laws, not how CO2 traps energy (which it can't).

I showed this to you months ago and even showed you the gas laws that were in actual fact being demonstrated but as usual you ignored that and here you are yet again calling someone a liar when you know very well that it is you who is the intellectually dishonest person involved in the discussion.

Typical.

The primary problem with his experiment, and in fact, all experiments that claim to show that CO2, or any gas other than water vapor can absorb and trap heat is that they take place in a closed system. The fact that the actual world is an open system invalidates the experiments in so far as they claim to prove that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs and retains heat.

We can confidently ask for any experimental data that proves that CO2 or any gas other than water vapor can absorb and trap or retain heat with perfect confidence that no such experiment exists that relates to the actual world we live in.

 

[konradv]

The moon analogy is ludicrous, since it has no atmosphere to heat up. Don't really see your point. Any heat you're talking about is surface heat. Thermometers measure "in the shade", therefore the temp wouldn't be much different whether it was day or night. Try again, this seems to be in the same vein as "CO2 isn't a GHG", i.e. shows a lack of true knowledge of the subject.

 

[wirebender]

The moon analogy is ludicrous, since it has no atmosphere to heat up.

Sorry it is over your head. If the atmosphere were capable of holding in, and according to wackos, multiplying the amount of energy via downward emitted radiation, the daytime side of the earth would be hotter than the moon. The fact that it isn't is undeniable evidence that the atmosphere serves to keep the earth cool.

Don't really see your point.

Wouldn't expect you to. Clearly this is all waaaaaayyyyy over your head. You proved that when you acknowledged that you didn't know how water vapor might trap heat when no other gas can. That is very basic stuff and you were completely unaware.

Any heat you're talking about is surface heat. Thermometers measure "in the shade", therefore the temp wouldn't be much different whether it was day or night.

Thermometers measure in the shade or in the sun. If the atmosphere didn't keep the earth cool, then during the daytime, the surface of the earth would be the same temperature as the surface of the moon during the day. If the atmosphere could trap and multiply heat via downward emitted radiation, then the surface of the earth during the day would be even warmer than the surface of the moon.

Try again, this seems to be in the same vein as "CO2 isn't a GHG", i.e. shows a lack of true knowledge of the subject.

You have lost and aren't bright enough to know it. I am still waiting for you to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 is able to absorb and retain heat. You claim it can happen and yet, you can't post any actual evidence of it.

Since you can't post any sort of evidence for your claim, perhaps you might be able to tell me how hot you believe the 400 CO2 molecules in any given million parts of air would have to get in order to raise the temperature of the other 999,600 molecules even a tiny fraction of a degree.

 

[konradv]

Done repeatedly. The explanation has been posted. Do a search and quit lying.

 

[IanC]

I wonder how much of the CO2 effect on Mars is diminished by the phase change heat transfers on the polar dry ice caps?

 

[westwall]

Done repeatedly. The explanation has been posted. Do a search and quit lying.

You have not done so. And in fact you merely make yourself look more foolish every time you post. You should just stop.

 

[RollingThunder]

[....blather, drivel and totally moronic nonsense....]

Ah, another meaningless and very worthless 'blizzard of bullshit' from ol' PeanutBrain.

 

[RollingThunder]

Done repeatedly. The explanation has been posted. Do a search and quit lying.

You have not done so. And in fact you merely make yourself look more foolish every time you post. You should just stop.

That's really funny, walleyed, since you make yourself look like a retarded chipmunk every time you post. You should just take a long walk on a short pier.

 

[westwall]

Done repeatedly. The explanation has been posted. Do a search and quit lying.

You have not done so. And in fact you merely make yourself look more foolish every time you post. You should just stop.

That's really funny, walleyed, since you make yourself look like a retarded chipmunk every time you post. You should just take a long walk on a short pier.

I do that frequently so I can go swimming. It's good excercise and you should do it too!