Global Warming Hoax Update

From Climate Depot:

Unprecedented July Cold – Arctic Sees Shortest Summer On Record

“Normally the high Arctic has about 90 days above freezing. This year there was less than half that,”  says Steven Goddard website.

I know, I know – the cold in the Arctic is due to Global Warming – except for the increased CO2 caused by racist, sexist, homophobic, straight, white males, the Arctic would have just been as cold as usual this year…

UPDATE: Walter Russell Mead weighs in on the Greens, in general:

…Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact…

This is, of course, all true – but Mead is still a “warmist”; he believes it is happening and that human actions might play a role in this.  The reason Mead believes this is because he works on the assumption that there is some element of honesty and rationality on the left.  For all his knowledge and excellent analytical skills, Mead hasn’t woke up to the fact that the left – in its leadership – is corrupt to the bone.  All they want is power and wealth for themselves and they’ll use whatever bit of BS that comes to mind to obtain it.  I don’t know that warming is happening, at all – I think we haven’t sufficient data on temperature and on the internal workings of the global climate to determine if its warming, cooling or staying the same (though I doubt it is staying the same – it seems to me that fluctuation is rather built-in).  Because people in responsible positions assert that it is happening, people like Mead work on the assumption that such people are not necessarily full of ****.  Trouble is, they are.  The wise man, in 2013, works on the assumption that anyone on the left in a leadership position who makes a statement is lying until proven otherwise.

Think about it – they say they care about families.  Then why implement policies which destroy families?  They say they care about the workers.  Then why implement policies which make it harder to create jobs which will go to the poor?  They say they care about education.  Then why implement policies which make it ever less likely that a child after 12 years in school will be literate?  They say they care about women.  Then why implement policies which ensure that more of them will be aborted?  On and on it goes – what they say they want is directly attacked by the policies the espouse.  The explanation:  they are in it for themselves and it is more likely that they’ll gain personal power and wealth – without having to earn it – if they advocate policies which are actually destructive.  Like this:  you can work for a living, or you can live off those who will pay you in order to keep a corrupt, unionized bureaucracy in power over education.

So it is with the environment – liberals say they want to clean it up.  Ok.  So lets go full bore in to nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal and other technologies which will provide us abundant, cheap and clean energy.  Nothing doing, say our liberals – they want to go in for solar and wind which are ineffective, massively expensive but which provide all manner of opportunity for graft (on both ends – corrupt “green energy” companies get government subsidies in return for providing donations and well-paid sinecures for liberals on the make).  The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is, at best, weak – and yet this lack of evidence, cleverly parlayed by propaganda, has been used to give massive new powers to liberals while also enriching liberals.  That it isn’t happening and that their proposed solutions will only make things worse doesn’t matter…they’ll just keep at it because they are narrow minded, greedy and self-centered (in short, what they claim we are – projection is not at all unconscious in the left: it is deliberate, a means of deflecting attention away from their corruption and failure).

But here’s our real problem – a good portion of those who should be on the side of the angels (like Mead) simply haven’t grasped the fact that the nice, articulate and oh, so friendly liberals they socialize with are con artists…who know how to turn on the charm and present a bright face, at need (they also know how to turn the wicked, gangster face on, too…a good con artist will switch from one to another with great ease).  To be sure, in the lower reaches of liberalism you don’t find con artists as often as you find dupes…but even there, it is dupery with a purpose: a low level liberal knows that if he toes the party line, rewards will follow.  But on top – nothing but liars on the make.  Understand that, and the battle becomes crystal clear.

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Global Warming Hoax Update

  1. GMB August 3, 2013 / 2:35 pm

    Now remember here, weather is not climate and this is just another weather event just on a larger scale.

    We are all dooooomed!

    Get with the program, puhleezzzzeee

  2. neocon01 August 3, 2013 / 2:47 pm

    ROTFLMAO

    Obama keeps promise – Sea levels fall

    Remember the famous speech by then-Senator Obama in 2008, in which he declared that his election would cause the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal?
    Continue Reading →
    Envisat (Photo Credit – ESA)
    Sea Level Continues Inexorable Decline
    The two-year-long decline is continuing at a rate of 5mm per year

    Great just great, now the illegal cubans will be walking to Fla.

    • GMB August 3, 2013 / 2:57 pm

      Are there any illegal Cubans? I thought that if they made it to shore they could legally stay here. Maybe that law changed?

      barky also got smacked on his comment about the last 10 years being the hottest on record. I’ll see if I can find a link about it.

      • M. Noonan August 6, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        No, Barky is wrong:

        since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature. While many engaged in the public discourse on this topic dismiss the significance of a hiatus in increasing global temperatures because of expected variations associated with natural variability, analyses of climate model simulations find very unlikely a plateau or period of cooling that extends beyond 17 years in the presence of human-induced global warming

        In other words, if the “settled science” is correct then it isn’t possible that we’d have a 17 year period of no significant warming. QED, Ricorun – the anthropogenic theory of global warming is FLAT WRONG. We might still be in a long term warming trend, but it isn’t human CO2 as the sole or primary culprit.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 12:02 pm

        Did you ever ask yourself why Dr. Curry chose 1998 as her target year? What’s up with that? Could it be that 1998 was, at the time, the warmest year on record by far. So in order to show a lack of statistical significance you need that point at the start of the interval. If you start with 1999, then the warming trend is significant. So why pick an interval starting at 1998 as opposed to 1999? Is there any compelling a priori reason for doing so? Or do you start with a conclusion and just pick the right interval to support it?

        No matter how you try to spin your statistics, the fact remains that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. The single exception? 1998.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 1:44 pm

        Mark: We might still be in a long term warming trend, but it isn’t human CO2 as the sole or primary culprit.

        Then what is? What evidence to you have to support your claim? Let’s talk about it.

      • M. Noonan August 7, 2013 / 2:28 pm

        Already provided – but the black helicopters apparently prevented you from reading it.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 3:44 pm

        Mark: Already provided – but the black helicopters apparently prevented you from reading it.

        Actually, what prevented me from reading the link you provided is that it doesn’t exist.

  3. neocon01 August 3, 2013 / 2:48 pm

    and if this keeps up Guam might not capsize….

    • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 1:51 pm

      As a matter of fact (not really) I’ve heard that a secret government agency is training dolphins to chip away at the ocean floor around Guam so as to make it capsize regardless of what the sea level is. It’s part of the conspiracy!

      But it gets worse! Then they’ve trained the dolphins to go poop on the coral reefs, infecting the coral and making them die just so they can blame it on global warming! I tell ya, these guys will stop at nothing!

  4. GMB August 4, 2013 / 12:28 am

    Such a litany of attack and insult is simply not allowed here. This was a very distasteful display. // Moderator

  5. Amazona August 4, 2013 / 1:10 pm

    While a lot of honest, sincere, well-meaning people have fallen for the AGW scam, for the best of reasons—they truly do want the earth and its natural resources to be protected—the key is to look at those at the top who create, promote and push these scams.

    And here is when we need to apply the age-old and still-relevant criterion—Follow The Money. Power follows money, so the scam is about both money and power, as they are so hard to separate.

    All Leftist ideology comes down to seizing power by a few at the top, and all Leftist ideology is made possible by sincere, well-meaning people who don’t look through the superficial rhetoric of the various slogans—Hope and Change, Speaking Truth to Power, Save the Earth, Choice, etc—to the underlying agenda behind them, which is the concentration of power, and therefore of money, in the hands of a Ruling Elite.

    These well-meaning, sincere people are controlled by implicit threats. That is, if one wants to look behind the curtain to see the truth he is automatically branded as a traitor to the cause, “anti-science”, or any of the multitude of Leftist pejoratives. It takes courage to stand up and point out that the emperor has no clothes, and there is immense pressure to never do so. This is aided by the Complicit Agenda Media, which refuse to publicize the hypocrisies of the anointed, such as the billions to be made by Al Gore if he can only convince us to engage in the scheme of trading carbon credits. In a sane world, people would see though the self-serving aspect of his crusade, but sanity is not encouraged on the Left. If George Bush were to be stomping around the country promoting solar panels, using fear tactics and lies and hysteria to support a claim that using solar panels is the best way to “SAVE THE PLANET !!!!!” and then it was learned that he had bought up the biggest solar panel manufacturers in the country, there would be crowds with torches and pitchforks demanding his head, but Gore gets a pass by way of simply looking the other way.

    The venal, like Gore, probably want money more than power, but the elites of the Left have always been driven by power lust, and the AGW scam is just another of the ways they scheme to gain control over people and the nation.

    • ricorun August 4, 2013 / 10:23 pm

      Amazona: While a lot of honest, sincere, well-meaning people have fallen for the AGW scam, for the best of reasons—they truly do want the earth and its natural resources to be protected—the key is to look at those at the top who create, promote and push these scams.

      Once again I find it remarkable how susceptible people are to conspiracy theories.

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 7:18 am

        reekO
        I find it remarkable how someone who reveals a SCAM is labeled a “conspiracy theorist” by a dupe who blindly follows a divinity school dropout.

      • Amazona August 5, 2013 / 8:44 am

        rico, once again I find it remarkable how quickly people like you need to dismiss anything you can’t understand as a mere “conspiracy theory”.

        You must be denying that there are billions to be made by convincing people that billions must be spent to control the climate—something no one can prove can be done, much less prove that it SHOULD be done even if it could. You must be denying that the same people who stand to gain billions if they are successful in this are the ones out hollering the loudest about the supposed crisis and explaining that the very things that will bring them vast riches are the things that MUSTMUSTMUSTMUSTMUST be done.

      • Amazona August 5, 2013 / 8:47 am

        neo, Algore didn’t even drop out of divinity school—–he FLUNKED out. Of divinity school, of all things.

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 11:11 am

        Ama

        Oh yeah thats right I forgot about that…..even Al & je$$e made it through LOL

      • ricorun August 6, 2013 / 2:51 pm

        meursalt1942: Your nickname is suspicious, but I think the article you linked to says it very well — in order to believe climate change is a scam you have to believe it is an incredibly massive conspiracy involving just about everyone except the fossil fuel industry (and their disciples). Even worse, none of the arguments against it are particularly convincing — or consistent, for that matter. It has gotten to the point where the only argument denialists have left is to shout, “you can’t prove it!” But don’t ask them if they can prove the opposite. They can’t. Of course they can’t.

        The fact is that science doesn’t deal in proofs. That’s mathematics, not science. In science there is always a degree of uncertainty. Even theories elevated to the status of a “law” (e.g., Newton’s laws of motion) are not proofs. Einstein demonstrated that — he came up with an explanation that fit all of the available data better than Newton’s. Newton’s theory explained the vast majority of conditions encountered on earth exceedingly well, but not conditions where objects approached the speed of light, among other extreme conditions. Does that mean Newton was full of poo? Of course not. For most situations relevant to humans, Einstein’s calculations agree with Newton’s to within several tens of significant digits. Newton didn’t do badly at all.

        Getting back to the subject at hand, I find it very compelling that the last decade really was the hottest on record. I find it compelling that the temperatures experienced in the last decade could very well be the hottest experienced on earth in the last 11,000 years. And I find it especially compelling that the velocity of temperature change we have experienced in the last 50 years is considerably higher than any period of similar duration since a massive asteroid struck the Yucatan peninsula 68 million years ago. But can anyone PROVE with 100% certainty that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible? Of course not. But the evidence is becoming overwhelming. More to the point, from a practical, risk management standpoint, it’s become increasingly likely that betting against anthropogenic climate change is likely to cost far more than betting for it.

        Climate change is largely important because of energy concerns. In other words, the big issue for climate change is the CO2 released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels to extract energy. World-wide, the cost of energy greatly exceeds a trillion dollars per year. That’s something I’ve been pointing out for years on this site. So I found it rather quaint when Amazon said, “You must be denying that there are billions to be made by convincing people that billions must be spent to control the climate—something no one can prove can be done, much less prove that it SHOULD be done even if it could.”

        I’m quite sure the “you” she refers to is me personally. If so, my reply to her personally is, “you are aiming way too low, and too far to the left, hon.” I can’t PROVE it, but every indication is that the payoff involved is far more than the “billions” you suggest. And it can’t be denied that there is a comparably huge payoff for those who benefit from convincing people that climate change is nothing to be worried about. Ultimately, the trillions of dollars involved are going to be made by someone. But who makes it? It should come as no mystery to anyone that I believe a transition from fossil fuels is not only inevitable for climate change reasons, but also for more traditional environmental reasons, as well as economic and national security reasons. I can’t PROVE it, but my studied opinion is: if we don’t incentivize the production of alternative solutions here in the US (and the sooner the better for various intellectual capital reasons), the more we will spend importing solutions offered by entities from other countries. I think that because I can prove that other countries are very actively working to close the gap between them and the US. Taking a more historical outlook, my studied opinion is informed by this:

        (1) The US has been the king of innovation for at least the last century, and for good reason: we as citizens, through the federal govermnent, have generously invested in basic scientific research as well as to-market engineering for considerably longer than the last century. As a result, we have developed a breadth of scientific and engineering knowledge and expertise that is still the envy of the world. And it is an expertise that it still dependent on the federal government.

        (2) Very arguably the current energy market is the biggest, fattest, most lucrative target we’ve had in all that time. And it is one that involves a breadth of scientific and engineering disciplines that the US is best positioned satisfy.

        That’s the state of the situation thus far, anyway. But other countries (particularly China) are catching up. I can’t PROVE it, but I have to say that to the extent that we let this opportunity slip through our fingers we will have no one else but ourselves to blame. But if anyone can PROVE otherwise, please speak up, lol!!

      • tiredoflibbs August 7, 2013 / 5:22 am

        Rico: ” in order to believe climate change is a scam you have to believe it is an incredibly massive conspiracy involving just about everyone except the fossil fuel industry (and their disciples).”

        Uh no. All one has to do is look at the conflicting and faulty science, the fraud and excessively faulty climate models behind it to realize it is a scam.

      • Amazona August 7, 2013 / 11:59 am

        No one is denying that there has been climate change. No one. As a matter of fact, this has been discussed, in detail, over and over again, right here on the blog. It has also been discussed, at length, and with examples, that climate change has always occurred, and has done so without any impact from human activity in the past.

        The questions are, and have been, and will remain:

        1. How much of this, if any, has been the result of human activity?
        2. How much of this, if any, is actually detrimental? That is, what is “normal” and what actually adds to the viability of the planet and its inhabitants? (Warmer temperatures decrease the use of fuels for survival, add to food production and life spans, etc.)
        3. What, if anything, can be done to change the impact of human activity on the planet, when and if these changes are determined to be harmful?
        4. Would the degree of correction be significant enough to be worth the cost, if it is proved that corrections could be made?

        If data had not been manipulated to support claims of AGW, the argument would less suspect. But once it has been proved that the data have been altered or deleted or simply ignored, in the pursuit of a predetermined conclusion, the entire subject demands extreme reevaluation and analysis.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 12:32 pm

        Amazona: 1. How much of this, if any, has been the result of human activity?
        It appears that pretty much all of the warming that has occurred since 1850 or so is the result of humans. Ironically, some of the studies that support that statement have been used on this site to deny it.
        2. How much of this, if any, is actually detrimental? That is, what is “normal” and what actually adds to the viability of the planet and its inhabitants?
        Everyone (except total crackpots maybe) knows that there is no normal. And it’s not so much change per se that is the issue (unless it results in crossing one or more “tipping points), but the velocity of change. The latter is what particularly concerns the Pentagon, because it could be prohibitively expensive and/or cause significant geopolitical instability.
        3. What, if anything, can be done to change the impact of human activity on the planet, when and if these changes are determined to be harmful?
        Basically you’re asking, “is there anything we can do if we wait too long?” Frankly, I don’t find that attitude very constructive — or, more importantly, profitable. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that most folks of any import have already determined that it’s harmful. Likewise, most folks have already determined that there are additional good reasons to seek alternatives to fossil fuels that have little to do with climate change but everything to do with making money, reduce the trade deficit, and enhance national security.
        4. Would the degree of correction be significant enough to be worth the cost, if it is proved that corrections could be made?
        Again, there is no such thing as proof. And again, in pretty much any situation with a reasonable amount of inevitability attached to it, if you wait until it’s too late to do something about it, the more expensive and/or more disruptive it will be to correct the situation.

        Do you smoke? If not, good. If so, the best thing you can do is stop. But I can’t prove that.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 2:44 pm

        tiredoflibbs: Uh no. All one has to do is look at the conflicting and faulty science, the fraud and excessively faulty climate models behind it to realize it is a scam.

        C’mon dude, why should your opinion count on this issue? What do you know about science in general, or climate science in particular? In short, what good is just “looking at the science” if you can’t possibly interpret it with any degree of accuracy? Isn’t that precisely why you go to a doctor when you’re not feeling well rather than diagnosing yourself? Actually, there is not much in the way of “conflicting” science, and even less in the way of “faulty” science, especially if one restricts oneself to peer reviewed journals. So if you think there is (and you think it’s intentional), you have to believe that the agencies behind those peer reviewed journals are part of the conspiracy. Thus, the conspiracy has grown in your mind.

        Fraud has certainly been accused, but all it takes for an accusation is for one or more people to accuse one or more others of wrong-doing. That’s easy because no evidence of any import is required to do that. What really counts is that despite numerous investigations (into both the investigators and the journals publishing their data), no charges at all have been brought accusing anyone of fraud or perpetrating a scam. So if you think there is, you have to believe the various agencies charged with conducting those investigations are colluding with the conspiracy. Thus, the conspiracy has grown in your mind.

        tiredoflibbs, all I ask is that you try to apply logic and reason — rather than just emotion and preconceived notions — to your comments. Is that too much to ask?

      • tiredoflibbs August 7, 2013 / 6:44 pm

        Uh, Rico, faulty science and erroneous climate models are not “preconceived notions”.

        The science has not been proved. Their wild and emotional predictions of doom and gloom and “we are approaching the tipping point” talking points, which you dutifully regurgitated have not occurred as the faulty climate models predicted.

        One doesn’t have to be a climatologist to see that man made global warming is not what the warner’s say it is. With other evidence presented by me and many others here disprove the man made global warming and there is no need to believe in conspiracy theories as you claimed earlier.

        Too bad, so sad for you and your talking points.

    • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 4:01 pm

      Amazona: No one is denying that there has been climate change. No one.

      Well, except for those who believe in Genesis. We can except those crackpots, right? That said, it might also be worthwhile to limit the conversation to particular epochs of geologic history — or at least label which geologic epoch we’re referring to, right? I’m beginning to think sloppiness, both in record-keeping and in the thought, may explain why many of those who still deny anthropogenic global warming are still comfortable with that increasingly untenable position. 🙂

  6. neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 7:21 am

    YUP

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 8:05 am

        reek-O
        It’s a CONSPIRACY …….I Tells ya….

        Report: FBI Can Remotely Turn on Phone Microphones for Spying.

      • ricorun August 6, 2013 / 3:05 pm

        I seem to have missed your point, neo. Are you suggesting that I, personally, believe that conservative policies are driving more Americans to suicide? For the record, I don’t. That may be a relief to you, but it’s beside the point as far as the present topic is concerned. See, in order to believe a conspiracy is afoot you have to believe the results were orchestrated and intentional. And that’s even goofier.

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 7:23 pm

        reek-O
        humor, & sarcasm look em up

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 4:03 pm

        Oh yeah, humor and sarcasm. Does that mean you agree with me? 🙂

        C’mon, say it… you know you do.

  7. bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 1:23 pm

    “So lets go full bore in to nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal and other technologies which will provide us abundant, cheap and clean energy. Nothing doing, say our liberals – they want to go in for solar and wind which are ineffective …” Mark

    Did anyone notice that US oil imports are approaching record lows?

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2013/07/11/US-oil-imports-approaching-record-low/UPI-38231373539747/

    Did anyone notice that Obama made two pro-fracking appointments lately? Secretary of the interior, Sally Jewell and Obama’s pick for Secretary of Energy, MIT scientist Ernest Moniz, has described water and air pollution risks associated with fracking ‘challenging but manageable ‘ with proper regulation and oversight.

    One conclusion from the data might be that Obama is not that liberal.

    • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 2:16 pm

      Ahhhhh love the QUALIFIER……..

      ‘challenging but manageable ‘******* with proper regulation and oversight.********

      • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        Well, the Ogallala aquifer which waters a large portion of the nations crops isn’t too far away from some of the oil deposits and pipelines bringing the oil to Florida might have to cross it. The farmers that saw what happens with complete deregulation (the dust bowl) will not be too troubled with some oversight.

    • Amazona August 5, 2013 / 7:06 pm

      “One conclusion from the data might be that Obama is not that liberal.”

      ?????????????

      I suppose one conclusion YOU might reach would be that. But then you reach some very odd conclusions. This, and your wackadoo comment on how corporations would just suck the aquifers dry and then move on, leaving arid wasteland in their wake, are classic examples. You seem to live inside your own head, where your fantasies qualify as reality.

      Here you identify these people as being “pro-fracking” though all you can come up with to support that claim is the mealy-mouthed qualifiers neo pointed out.

      And how you can make the huge leap from appointing someone who is careful to not openly disparage fracking to not being “that liberal” is simply incomprehensible. Unless one takes into account the source of this assumption, that is.

      • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 8:38 pm

        http://gazette.com/two-cheers-for-pro-fracking-appointments/article/1500503

        Amazona, you are really super lazy. I don’t know how you managed to fool everyone as being that hard worker, but 5 seconds with Google isn’t that hard. Also, many newspapers in Colorado including the Gazette from Colorado Springs have praised Obama for these appointments.

        Another source for the pro-fracking comment would be that lefty website known as breitbart.

        Mark said liberals don’t want abundant energy which is carbon or nuclear, I pointed out that under Obama directives and appointees the amount of such imports is at a 20 year low. Liberals against carbon based energy, Obama for carbon based energy implies Obama isn’t a liberal.

        AND again, the dust bowl itself with its ‘suitcase farmers’ is a historical fact that you can’t explain away with grammatically correct sophistry. Corporations have only a profit motive. They have no underlying reason to be good stewards of the environment. While the dust bowl was during your early years, certainly you remember the BP oil spill?

      • ricorun August 6, 2013 / 3:28 pm

        My theory is that Amazona won’t appear on this sub-thread anymore. As much as she has to say about all sorts of things, she never appears on a sub-thread once it’s clear she’s been humiliated. Of course, I can’t PROVE that, it’s just an hypothesis (not even a theory) accumulated from many different data points.

        For the record, though, the evidence thus far suggests that fracking can cause problems in some instances, but that the instances can be effectively controlled and/or mitigated with effective regulation. Of course, the evidence could never PROVE that effective regulation was the cause of better business practices in the fracking industry, so why spend the money?

      • Amazona August 6, 2013 / 8:44 pm

        rico, you flatter yourself by imagining, even for a fleeting instant, that you could possibly “humiliate” me. That would be analogous to saying that an annoying gnat “humiliated” me.

        And your silly hypothesis is just as silly as the one that there are soooooo many forms of government which do not fall into either the small federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power model or that of expansive federal government unrestrained by such restrictions. Or that the inability to develop a coherent political philosophy based on a rational determination of the best way to govern the country is really just pragmatism.

        In other words, nonsense.

        I do find you and your nonsense tiresome and sometimes decide to leave you to your expounding on your “theories” and “hypotheses” but that is just because I have better things to do than waste more time on you. I suppose your quite sizable ego means that on Planet Rico “bored” means “humiliated” but in the real world, not so much.

        You told me all I need to know about you when, after a particularly excruciating series of bloviations on your part, I teased that the bloom must be off the rico newlywed rose and the new Mrs. Rico was no longer hanging on your every word, as fiancees and new brides tend to do, driving you back to the blog to find an audience for your theories, and you had a shrill and strident meltdown accusing me of “attacking” your wife, blah blah blah. You were quite overwrought and nasty, and I remember thinking how odd it was that you found it necessary to invent such malice and then attach it to such an innocent comment. Since then you have also accused me of mounting personal attacks on your family, and the result has been the formation of such a total lack of respect for you that you could not “humiliate” me if you spent your whole life trying and managed to round up a posse to help you.

        But you go on pretending that you can, if that’s what you need to get you through the day.

      • Amazona August 6, 2013 / 9:09 pm

        While dolf gets the vapors over words like “goofy” and “pissy” on the same thread he calls me lazy and weasely, he ignores the fact that his comment about Obama not being all that liberal is a statement of utter political illiteracy.

        Oh, it flies if you define political terms by personality or event or declared identity. But if you actually understand the meaning of Liberal, in a political sense, his comment is utterly fatuous and, dare I raise the dreaded “g word” again, goofy.

        If one has a cartoonish and Leftish view of eeeeevil capitalists and corporations, such as the belief that unfettered by regulation they would rape the environment and then retire to count their $4000, leaving the rest of us to die of thirst, etc. then I suppose it makes sense to claim that only government intervention can restrain these horrible inclinations. It all fits into a tidy little narrative that seems to comfort some people. (It seems to be predominate in those encapsulated in the bubbles of even low-level academia.)

        Obama has been praised for all sorts of things and the fact that some paper in Colorado Springs did this seems to impress the easily convinced but without more hard evidence of the reality of the actual positions of these people, rather than the PR about them, I withhold my judgment.

        Gee, dolf, I never realized the scope of your pettiness. Let’s see—in this one thread you have indulged in your sexism by stating that I am only allowed to post here because the blog needs a token woman, you have wallowed in spiteful ageism with your snotty claim that the Dust Bowl was in my “early years”, you have labeled my commentary as “sophistry”, you call me a “dilettante”, you call me “lazy” and “weasely”, you evidently exceeded even these levels of nastiness to the point of having a whole post removed and being chastised for rudeness, and then you posture as an occupant of the Moral High Ground. Self-delusion seems to be your theme today.

        And this all tap dances around the fact that you made an absurd and indefensible comment, that the appointment of someone who has been described by someone as being “pro fracking” means that Barack Obama is not a Liberal.

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 2:48 pm

        Me: My theory is that Amazona won’t appear on this sub-thread anymore.

        So much for that theory. Who’d a’ guessed? 🙂

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 3:40 pm

        Amazona: rico, you flatter yourself by imagining, even for a fleeting instant, that you could possibly “humiliate” me.

        Perhaps you flatter yourself by imagining that I humiliated you. I didn’t. Rather, I suggested you humiliate yourself. Then you doubled down by bringing up the fact that you criticized my wife. You tried to put a positive spin on it (a spin that is wishful at best), but the fact is… negative opinions about the families of others should be off-limits to everyone. Period.

        You said further, “you have also accused me of mounting personal attacks on your family, and the result has been the formation of such a total lack of respect for you that you could not ‘humiliate’ me if you spent your whole life trying and managed to round up a posse to help you.”

        Again, I have not accused you of “mounting attacks”, nor have I tried to humiliate you. That’s not my character. I would not attempt to do so even under the best of circumstances — e.g., circumstances where the playing field favored my point of view. Be that as it may, the existing circumstances have given you the opportunity to do a bang-up job of humiliating yourself on your own. More to the point, YOU are the master of the ad hominem attack, not me — or anyone else, for that matter.

        I don’t think you’re a bad person, Amazona. But I do think this site brings out the worst in you.

  8. neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 2:14 pm

    Dr. B
    did anyone notice that gasoline is three hundred % higher than when Obammy slid in?
    Did any one notice that my companies gasoline bill has risen from under $250.00 a month to OVER $900.00? during that time?
    did anyone notice that our replacement market is off @ 45% because a lack of $$$$ due to rising costs, prices, and lower wages in general??
    well NOBODY working for big Bro with unlimited OPM that is , the rest of us? Ummmm? YES!!

    • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 4:19 pm

      Regular unleaded Jan 19, 2009 was $1.838 per gallon and is currently $3.646. That’s a hundred percent increase not three hundred.

      What this does is answer the nonsense that Bush did some conservative magic of opening US supplies to move the (WORLD) price down from $4.08 in June 2008 to $1.66 in December 2008. The market was forced to admit that demand was way down (because 2 wars and a Barney Frank housing bubble destroyed the US economy) while supplies were steady.

      The US domestic supply along with Canadian imports will make North America free of Middle East Oil. BUT there is a world demand so don’t expect your gas prices to go down too far because US companies don’t want to sell gas to Neocon1 at $1.85 per gallon when they can sell it to a Frenchman for $3.00 per gallon.

      Also, maybe we can lobby to get corn out of gasoline to keep food prices down as well!

  9. neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 2:54 pm

    GMB

    did you ever get that tail # from bomber boy?
    maybe now he will give it up at the LOON echo chamber.

    • bardolf2 August 6, 2013 / 12:02 am

      Your posts today have been increasingly rude and hostile, now getting into name calling. If you are not comfortable with a format of discourse instead of insult you are free to find other places to post. // Moderator

      • bardolf2 August 6, 2013 / 2:55 pm

        In trying to convince GMB not to give up posting at B4V I referred to Neo as the only other person on this blog with actual combat service in a war. To highlight his role, I jokingly referred to Neo as ‘an insane Floridian’. From the context it is clear that the “name calling” was affectionate.

        On the other hand, Amazona gets pass after pass for hostile language and ad hominem attacks. I understand the need to have at least 1 woman on B4V, but really excusing her continual rude speech is just pandering to a desired demographic. That’s what the Democrats do.

        “You seem to live inside your own head, where your fantasies qualify as reality.” gets a pass.
        “Pissy” gets a pass.
        “Goofy” gets a pass.

        All of these comments come out as she thrashes losing issue after issue. Of course she isn’t talking directly, instead she can’t resist inserting herself into conversations when she feels she needs to swoop in to defend Neocon. Neocon argues well enough without a dilettante to watch his back.

      • bardolf2 August 8, 2013 / 2:10 am

        Which posters on B4V also have moderating privileges?

      • Amazona August 8, 2013 / 10:33 pm

        Be pretty funny if it was neo and me, wouldn’t it? heh heh heh

      • neocon01 August 9, 2013 / 2:43 pm

        Drudge
        Danish Newspaper Warns: ‘Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age; Much Colder Winters; Dramatic Consequences’…

        Barbara Boxer Blames CA Wildfires On Global Warming…

        OMG……..these MORONS are in charge???

      • meursault1942 August 10, 2013 / 1:19 pm

        “Which posters on B4V also have moderating privileges?”

        Amazona and Retired Spook, plus whoever the original author of a post is.

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 6:10 pm

        Dr B.
        Moderator….
        I and dolf engage in back and forth which may sound like name calling to some but it is all in razzing and good fun, and discussion which includes politics, religion, and personal points of view which sometimes are long held beliefs on both parties but can be vigorously debated.
        Dr. B’s analogy as a “crazy Floridian” was simply light hearted jest and I took no insult from it, in fact I thought it was funny, as I do his ” neoconehead” rebuttal.
        Our trolls have pretty much moved on and baldork and GMB are one of the good guys though we may not always be 100% in agreement on everything.
        Same with reek-O and caspy. Though we always may not agree and sometimes debate aggressively I do not think they distract from the blog because they are good people who view things differently.
        I bust on both casp and reek my self and they give back in kind.

        We all are pretty much long time posters here unlike the banned trolls who are rightfully gone.

        Just my $.02
        🙂

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 6:42 pm

        ROR

        LOL
        yes ripple with my Limburger.

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 6:45 pm
      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 6:58 pm

        Dr B
        damn, if only they hadnt plowed that portion of the Atlantic we need more gove oversite I tells ya!!

        Massive Saharan Dust Cloud Covers Atlantic…

      • Amazona August 7, 2013 / 12:28 pm

        I wonder if anyone is “begging” a federal government to step in here.

        BTW, one point missed (aw, could it BE that a relevant point was missed!!?? Say it ain’t so!!) is that one of the contributors to the Dust Bowl was cultural. That is, in Europe and even in the Eastern United States, a farmer was judged by his peers by the straightness of his furrows and the uniformity of the soil. It simply went against everything these farmers believed to plow anything but ruler-straight furrows, and to leave the soil in clumps and clods, and it took the lesson of seeing their nicely cultivated land, with its soil broken down into smoothness, all blow away to realize that they needed to reevaluate their old standards.

        And no one understood this UNTIL the land blew away. It hadn’t happened before.

        People did what rational people do—they looked at a problem, tried to analyze its origins, and then tried to come up with ways to help avoid a repetition of that problem in the future. There is a certain mentality that is absolutely convinced that these farmers would not or could not have figured this out for themselves, but this is how elites think—only they have the answers, and then they (government officials, academics, etc) have to talk down to the little people to educate them.

        However, as a daughter and granddaughter and niece and cousin of farmers, who then returned to an agricultural way of life, I know that farmers are not stupid, and that they are the ones most capable of looking at something, working out what went wrong, and developing solutions and new approaches to solving problems. It is the self-styled elites who need to congratulate themselves on being necessary and important, who need to take credit for changes that would have been made anyway.

        I remember community meetings led by government workers, county extension agents, who would provide coffee and pie and then lecture farm wives on things like how to boil and peel eggs—that one really stood out in my memory, and I was very young at the time—–while women who had been cooking excellent meals for years politely hid their eyerolls and used the occasions to visit and have a social evening with free pie and coffee. While the pie was never as good as these supposedly ignorant cooks routinely produced in their own kitchens, it was a chance to get together with neighbors, with the only cost being lectured by someone with vastly less experience (but with a degree!!) on things they already knew.

        (And I assure dolf that these meetings did NOT take place during the Dust Bowl, but decades later, just to calm his incipient ageism. They were, however, the result of the attitude that was born in the 20s, that the government needed to step in and tell people what to do.)

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 1:39 pm

        For the record, I know the way to perfectly boil and peel a hard-boiled egg (it’s amazing how many people don’t). But I didn’t need a government official to tell me how.

        Anyway, back to the main topic: you point out that no one understood the dynamics underlying the dust bowl “UNTIL the land blew away. It hadn’t happened before.” And yet you seem to be advocating the same attitude toward the threat of global warming. What’s up with that?

      • neocon01 August 7, 2013 / 3:04 pm

        And yet you seem to be advocating the same attitude toward the threat of global warming. What’s up with that?

        because unlike the dust bowl AGW hasn’t happened, will not happen, and even if it did we couldn’t extinguish the source the SUN! AGW is a man made revenue driven scam.
        Some fools buy it, some learned people don’t…as they say FOLLOW the MONEY!!

      • Amazona August 7, 2013 / 7:49 pm

        I’ve been working on your odd comment about applying the lessons of the Dust Bowl to the claims of AGW.

        Are you saying that the old style farming techniques ought to have prompted someone to say “We should do this differently from now on in case we get a real drought and then a lot of wind”? OK, I can go along with that.

        When my brothers and I took over our family business and started fixing things, and were constantly finding new problems, fortunately usually before they erupted into crises (permit apps not filed but caught before deadlines had expired, etc.) I decided that my official title should be CPO. That is, Chief Paranoia Officer. It has become my job to scour every aspect of the company, from the bookkeeping to the reportage to the duties of the Safety Officer, to find potential problems and solve them before they become real problems. So I have no problem in the basic idea that someone somewhere along the line should have foreseen a potential problem, given a specific series of circumstances happening in unison.

        And in this case some mitigation would have been to go back and plant some of the old drought-resistant grasses to help stabilize the soil, start plowing in curves instead of straight lines, do some terracing, do crop rotation and leave large areas fallow with old growth so all the land is not exposed, and stop breaking up dirt clods by repeated plowing to make the land look nice and tidy. These would have been unproven theories based upon a series of “what ifs?” and hindsight says they would have been prudent.

        However, at that time it would have been quite easy to look at the land, see the soil there, establish the presence of that soil as a normal baseline, and realize that removal of that soil would be a bad thing. But we can’t look at our current temperatures and say, with the slightest degree of certainty, that they are above the normal baseline for the planet. Because no one knows what “normal” IS. What is the temperature supposed to be? Was it abnormally low and then started to rise toward “normal”? We not only can’t say what “normal” is, we can’t even say what “ideal” is. All we know is that it was this, and then it rather rapidly became that, and although the rise has stopped it was kind of scary because no one knew what it might mean and some saw it as prophetic of catastrophe.

        Yes, temps rose for a while, from the levels we established not very long ago in geologic terms. But we can only extrapolate what temps were like before we could measure temperature, and guess within a few degrees based on various criteria such as fossils, etc. Well, the rise in the past few years has been less than the margin of error in the estimates of what fossils tell us about temperatures in the past.

        So your effort to link the Dust Bowl situation to what is happening today is simply not doable. The two situations are not even remotely similar.

        This is without factoring in the other things that cast such huge doubts upon the whole AGW-sky-is-falling hysteria. From the fairly recent predictions of a new Little Ice Age (some of them coming from a consensus of Japanese scientists right in the middle of Western hysteria about the earth getting too hot) based upon the historical data linking cooler temperatures to distance from the sun and decreased solar activity, to the corollary of higher temperatures linked to proximity to the sun and higher solar activity, to the falsification of data and blatant efforts to stir up irrational fears by misstating facts, to the data showing that while ice is decreasing in one place it is increasing somewhere else, the entire AGW scare is so full of holes that entirely new data, from new unimpeachable sources are going to have to be produced to overcome the defects in the “science” we have seen blown to bits by reality.

      • neocon01 August 9, 2013 / 2:37 pm

        reek-O
        “For the record, I know the way to perfectly boil and peel a hard-boiled egg “

        I’ll bet you peel a mean banana also…….

      • Amazona August 6, 2013 / 8:27 pm

        dolf, I did not realize that to you, pissy and goofy qualify as trauma-inducing ad hominem insults. I suppose if I comment on what a fragile little flower you are, wilting under such blistering attacks, that will also be considered just too too mean for you.

        Sigh.

        On the other hand, your snide and dismissive comment that I am allowed to post here simply because of a need to fill a gender quota is really quite snotty and rude, as well as an indicator of your attitude toward women who challenge you.

        I go head to head with Mark, and neo, without hearing a whimper from them. It’s been really interesting to see which men can handle a challenge from a woman, and which males simply revert to sexist snarling.

        Take a bow.

      • neocon01 August 7, 2013 / 8:45 am

        . I suppose if I comment on what a fragile little flower you are,

        GASP, .you mean dolf is a…………..( in my best Aarnold voice) Guirrrly Man?

      • Amazona August 7, 2013 / 12:11 pm

        Oh, no, neo, I could never say such a thing. I can think it, and dolf can illustrate it, but I would never say it, because that would just be too too mean, and you know how sensitive he is. I just leave his fluttering and fretfulness and fussiness to speak for themselves.

        Uh-oh. Now I bet that “fluttering” and “fretful” will be redefined, in the best of Leftist traditions, to support a desired outcome, and “fussy” will now be considered an ad hominem “attack”.

        I am so glad you and Mark can engage in spirited debate without falling apart and retreating into the bigotries of ageism and sexism, whimpering and whining. Three such, uh, men, on this blog are more than enough. (Though I have yet to disagree with Spook or the Count or Rathaven, I am quite sure that any such disagreement would be met with a far more, shall we say ‘manly’, reception than the whining we have seen here.)

      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 1:25 pm

        Amazona says she’s a woman, but I’m not convinced. 🙂 Anyway, what does it matter? She’s as much of a gnarly old coot as the rest of us regulars. Sometimes I get pissed off at her, and obviously she gets pissed off at me too. Sure, I think she’s too much of a simple ideologue, an “ivory tower” type (sans ivory tower) too taken with a theory that obviously can’t function in real life. But in general she listens to what is said, thinks about it, and remembers it. That said, there’s not much evidence that she consolidates new information with the old, but there’s always hope. And if not, that’s one of the things that make us old coots charming, right?

      • neocon01 August 7, 2013 / 2:59 pm

        Amazona says she’s a woman, but I’m not convinced

        flunked birds and the bees 101 eh reek-O?
        Oh well I think the same about some of the “guys” who post here and barry……paging Crocodile Dundee!

      • neocon01 August 7, 2013 / 3:14 pm
      • ricorun August 7, 2013 / 5:56 pm

        neocon: flunked birds and the bees 101 eh reek-O?

        To be honest, I don’t recall ever taking B&B 101. But I’m quite sure neither a passing or a failing grade would have helped vis-a-vis the present topic.

      • Amazona August 7, 2013 / 7:25 pm

        “Amazona says she’s a woman, but I’m not convinced”

        You find this charming?

        And you keep repeating that I attacked or criticized your wife, or a ‘family member” when it is abundantly clear that if there was any criticism in my comment it was aimed at you. The only reference to Mrs. Rico was that perhaps enough time had passed since the nuptials that she had heard all of your stories and no longer provided a rapt audience for your bloviating, driving you back to the blog to look for a venue for your verbosity.

        There was, and is, not a whit of criticism of poor Mrs. Rico in that. If one is going to read anything in it, it would be sympathy for her plight and understanding of a withdrawal of the appearance of fascination when you speak.

        Your inability to process information was writ clear in your overwrought and completely inappropriate response to this mild jest, and has just been illustrated yet again when you repeat that no one should attack family members. Well, no one should. And no one has.

    • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 8:09 am

      GMB

      sorry to hear that, However I will never post on the new trolls U us reject site. Maybe you can ask B4V mgt for my personal E mail add………to be sent to you..I Give permission!!
      🙂

    • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 8:16 am

      and 1 of them is an insane Floridian

      LOL
      Well then I should be the new lead poster at the LOONY LEFT echo chamber where insanity rules,
      The place where losers, misfit trolls, and rejects gather for backslapping and drooling.
      Hey you might fit right in there, but please dont go we need at least two short bussers to slap in the back of the head now and again… 🙂

    • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 8:31 am

      dolf

      and from a blog you know who is what??

      Christianity 101

      The Incarnation in traditional Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity, also known as God the Son or the Logos (Word), “became flesh” by being conceived in the womb of a woman, the Virgin Mary

      Definition: Gnosticism was a second century heresy claiming that salvation could be gained through secret knowledge. Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “to know.”

      ever hear of this??
      Apostles’ Creed

      1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

      2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

      3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

      4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

      5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

      6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

      7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

      8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

      9. I believe in the holy catholic (universal) church: the communion of saints:

      10. The forgiveness of sins:

      1l. The resurrection of the body:

      12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

  10. neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 4:15 pm

    Dr B.
    soooo NOW the drought brought on by La Niña is the “unregulated” farmers fault??
    WOW……..now wonder graduates with BA degrees talk in ebonics, and high school sr’s cant read cursive.

    • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 4:27 pm

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause.htm

      “The seeds of the Dust Bowl may have been sowed during the early 1920s. A post-World War I recession led farmers to try new mechanized farming techniques as a way to increase profits. Many bought plows and other farming equipment, and between 1925 and 1930 more than 5 million acres of previously unfarmed land was plowed . With the help of mechanized farming, farmers produced record crops during the 1931 season. However, overproduction of wheat coupled with the Great Depression led to severely reduce­d market prices. The wheat market was flooded, and people were too poor to buy. Farmers were unable to earn back their production costs and expanded their fields in an effort to turn a profit — they covered the prairie with wheat in place of the natural drought-resistant grasses and left any unused fields bare.

      But plow-based farming in this re­gion cultivated an unexpected yield: the loss of fertile topsoil that literally blew away in the winds, leaving the land vulnerable to drought and inhospitable for growing crops. In a brutal twist of fate, the rains stopped. By 1932, 14 dust storms, known as black blizzards were reported, and in just one year, the number increased to nearly 40.”

      Farmers at some point begged the federal government to intervene against neighbors who didn’t take care of their land properly. That is also why today it the government that controls how much water each farmer can take from the aquifer. Without regulation the natural tendency for corporate farms would be to use up all the water as soon as possible.

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 4:33 pm

        unintended consequences? YES
        cause? NO
        there is NOTHING at the time that the government knew or could have done to prevent the drought, the drought CAUSED the dust bowl, did over plowing exasperate it? possibly.

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 4:36 pm

        Without regulation the natural tendency for corporate farms would be to use up all the water as soon as possible.

        Really? THEN WHAT????
        stand around and watch their crops die from lack of water and bankrupt them??
        Business 101 dolf you should really learn it.

      • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 4:57 pm

        If a company could buy land at $5000 per acre, hire someone to farm it for another $6000 per acre for say 10 years, use up all the water in those 10 years but sell the crops for $15,000 the company would have made a profit of $4000.

        Why are you talking about bankruptcy in the face of a $4000 profit? The company would then move on to other investments.

      • neocon01 August 5, 2013 / 5:36 pm

        first that is not what you originally said.
        and good DR, there are the same numbers of water molecules on the earth as was from the beginning of time, so how can you use it all up?
        another leftist fantasy.

      • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 6:07 pm

        Neo

        Not too many crops in the USA grow with saltwater, the easily available aquifer water is what makes much of Midwest farming possible. The same number of carbon molecules is constant in the universe, nevertheless for energy purposes it is best if stored in concentrated sources like coal or oil. My point is if there is a valuable resource that can be mined by anyone, then those with the deepest pockets will mine it first and quickest.

        Droughts are not so uncommon in Oklahoma and yet native grasses have managed to survive them for eons. The over plowing turned a longish drought into the worst environmental disaster in US history. Government research at land grant universities like Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and the like is what led to better soil management techniques.

      • Amazona August 5, 2013 / 7:22 pm

        neo, trying to talk to dolf is like watching a flea skitter around on a hot skillet. He can flash from one topic to another, one excuse to another, one “explanation” to another, so fast it is impossible to keep up. Not that anyone wants to try, because the premises are so downright goofy.

        Did you note his tossing in the possible dangers to the Ogallala aquifer and then scurrying off without a single fact to back it up? Could be big bad fracking, could be big bad oil pipelines, could be big bad corporations, could be big bad “natural tendencies”, could be big bad whatever is on his radar this week.

        Today seems to be Non Sequitur Day out on the staked plains of eastern New Mexico. I wonder if his math is any more linear than his other efforts.

      • Amazona August 5, 2013 / 7:26 pm

        “That is also why today it the government that controls how much water each farmer can take from the aquifer.”

        In Colorado, water is a state issue, not a federal issue. You’re not just muddling things up again, are you?

        One of the complaints about the Heritage River Act was that it was an effort to shift water control from states to the feds.

        And one has to wonder why farmers would “beg” the federal government to intervene. Back then, before the whole New Deal scam, people were more aware of the Constitution and state sovereignty.

      • bardolf2 August 5, 2013 / 11:36 pm

        “In Colorado, water is a state issue, not a federal issue. “- Amazona

        In anticipation of your weaseling I stated government and not federal government. But of course even with your weaseling you are of course wrong. By and large water is a state issue AFTER it has passed through being an interstate/federal issue. For example the Colorado RIver Compact of 1922

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

        Really, Google isn’t that hard to use.

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 8:20 am

        Really, Google isn’t that hard to use.

        It cant be you use it….. and you are a “Dr”

      • Amazona August 6, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        My goodness, dolf, what pissy little thing you are today. Evidently you see the blog as personal litter box for your deposits when you are feeling even more catty than usual. I’m sorry you are feeling so frustrated and snarly——maybe a nice Zinfandel and some Danish brie will calm your obviously high-strung self today, so you can come back with a modicum of courtesy and restraint.

      • ricorun August 6, 2013 / 3:40 pm

        Amazona: neo, trying to talk to dolf is like watching a flea skitter around on a hot skillet. He can flash from one topic to another, one excuse to another, one “explanation” to another, so fast it is impossible to keep up.

        Where have I heard that before? Lol! The funny thing is that while I haven’t paid much attention to baldorf in previous threads (sorry baldorf?), I don’t see much evidence of what you claim on this thread, Amazona.

        I’ve heard similar accusations leveled against me as well. What I haven’t heard is any substantive evidence. Would you like to be the first to try?

      • neocon01 August 6, 2013 / 7:28 pm

        I’ve heard similar accusations leveled against me as well. What I haven’t heard is any substantive evidence.

        Flew over the cho cho’s nest eh??
        Here
        neocon01 August 5, 2013 at 7:21 am

Comments are closed.