Biden tests positive for COVID

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychodave
  • Start date Start date
Justin Bailey said:
I am listening the actual fucking scientists that did the test. Even they do not agree with acceptance.
Click to expand...
jjjj.gif
 
Floyd Eye said:
The actual fucking scientists you not ten minutes ago told me not to listen to ?
Click to expand...

I told you to listen to them saying we should nuke poles lol.
Do you not see how that is different from a scientist saying “this the data we found”?
 
Justin Bailey said:
I told you to listen to them saying we should nuke poles lol.
Do you not see how that is different from a scientist saying “this the data we found”?
Click to expand...
In the 70s that was the consensus genius. And you said don’t listen to the narrative. I assume you mean to tell us that you are somehow capable of parsing between the two, but none of us are. I already addressed that bullshit a few minutes ago when I pointed out that you are provably as biased as anyone else.
 
Floyd Eye said:
In the 70s that was the consensus genius. And you said don’t listen to the narrative. I assume you mean to tell us that you are somehow capable of parsing between the two, but none of us are. I already addressed that bullshit a few minutes ago when I pointed out that you are provably as biased as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Lol that was not the consensus

But that does answer my question that you don’t see the difference between the two scenarios I provided
 
acceptance said:
It's Dan against the whole world: RT, the science writers, the study authors.... 🤣
Click to expand...
Wrong again lol.

Dan: (agrees with the entire scientific community)

Acceptance: looks like it’s Dan against the whole world!
 
Justin Bailey said:
Or maybe because you add nothing to any conversation towards me besides dragging up old shit to try and lob insults. Seems pretty bitter to me
Click to expand...

Fantasy world. I literally asked you your thoughts on actual relevant basic concepts to the discussion and you went straight to passive aggressiveness, because you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're just playing pretend and it's a pretty bad look on you. It's fine if you want to discuss environment or space, but when you call things facts or tell others that they're wrong when you don't have a clue what you're even talking about is pretty funny. Anyways, enjoy your vacation!
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
Fantasy world. I literally asked you your thoughts on actual relevant basic concepts to the discussion and you went straight to passive aggressiveness, because you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're just playing pretend and it's a pretty bad look on you. It's fine if you want to discuss environment or space, but when you call things facts or tell others that they're wrong when you don't have a clue what you're even talking about is pretty funny. Anyways, enjoy your vacation!
Click to expand...

I don’t think I was passive aggressive about it. I said straight up I didn’t have any idea what clocks you were talking about. I asked for clarification twice in what you meant by my “stance” on something, to which twice you did not respond. So I answered to how I thought was appropriate.
 
Floyd Eye said:
The fact that you think you stay in topic is a fantasy.
Click to expand...
That’s because I consider the “topic” to be what people were currently talking about and not whatever random point you want to interject.
 
acceptance said:
Is he about to have another meltdown?
Click to expand...

Lol the great meltdown when I called a bunch of people acting like cunts, cunts. Props to VB for being the only one taking it to heart.

I’m on actual vacation from work this week. At the moment I’m carving out an archway between two bushes to connect both sides of the yard. Puppy coming soon that needs room to run
 
Justin Bailey said:
I don’t think I was passive aggressive about it. I said straight up I didn’t have any idea what clocks you were talking about. I asked for clarification twice in what you meant by my “stance” on something, to which twice you did not respond. So I answered to how I thought was appropriate.
Click to expand...

If you were so well informed on the subject that you have so many facts about, you wouldn't need clarification on a question about the BASICS .
You didn't know what any of those things meant, and that shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is fine, but you probably should hold off on telling everyone they're facts when you can't even articulate or understand why that would be.
 
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower said:
If you were so well informed on the subject that you have so many facts about, you wouldn't need clarification on a question about the BASICS .
You didn't know what any of those things meant, and that shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is fine, but you probably should hold off on telling everyone they're facts when you can't even articulate or understand why that would be.
Click to expand...

I still don’t know what you meant by stance. What is my stance on a proven natural cycle? That it happens? Is that what you wanted from me?
Since you still haven’t clarified, I’m sticking with my original post that it the process does not change my “stance” on what greenhouse gases do to the climate. They will make the earth warmer, silicate weathering or not

And sure, if you want to equate different nitrogen isotopes used in core sampling and the steps of the scientific method as being “basic” then that is what it is lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 
Back
Top