"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtjidimtif2f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AI5ue.584$5w3.559@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > ... to promote my *science* agenda..
>
> youre "science" agenda was nothing more than "could be's" from self serving
> governmental agencies.

The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.
Show evidence that NOAA is wrong... impugning NOAA
science by calling the organization 'self-serving' commits
the logical fallacy of agumentum ad hominem... a quote:

<>
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" ....
The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. ...This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.
</>

Note that your fallacy is the abusive form...

> > You asserted that
> > you would change your mind if given good evidence...
>
> so give me something _conclusive_ that doesnt come from a self serving
> governmental agency.

Sorry... I've posted plenty of evidence.. even pointed
out your logic problems to you. Now *you* have to
post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
the ozone layer... have it explain why the rest of the
world is wrong, while you're at it.
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtpoqjca0cdc@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Sporting? > ) Who said this had to be sporting?
>
> exactly. this is about promoting your liberal agenda just as youve been
> taught to do.

No, it's about looking smart in front
of a dummy... big ego boost. Your
politics are just the icing on the cake...
Logic comes before politics, at least,
in *my* book.... : ) ... not so much
in yours, I can tell.

> > I have a hard time
> > believing that one post a day, apiece, is tearing you
> > guys up.
>
> ----, we agree on something! :-)

Look! We dragged some others in... and
Bill's on with the hemishpere thing again!
This thread lives! : )
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtpoqjca0cdc@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Sporting? > ) Who said this had to be sporting?
>
> exactly. this is about promoting your liberal agenda just as youve been
> taught to do.

No, it's about looking smart in front
of a dummy... big ego boost. Your
politics are just the icing on the cake...
Logic comes before politics, at least,
in *my* book.... : ) ... not so much
in yours, I can tell.

> > I have a hard time
> > believing that one post a day, apiece, is tearing you
> > guys up.
>
> ----, we agree on something! :-)

Look! We dragged some others in... and
Bill's on with the hemishpere thing again!
This thread lives! : )
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtpoqjca0cdc@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Sporting? > ) Who said this had to be sporting?
>
> exactly. this is about promoting your liberal agenda just as youve been
> taught to do.

No, it's about looking smart in front
of a dummy... big ego boost. Your
politics are just the icing on the cake...
Logic comes before politics, at least,
in *my* book.... : ) ... not so much
in yours, I can tell.

> > I have a hard time
> > believing that one post a day, apiece, is tearing you
> > guys up.
>
> ----, we agree on something! :-)

Look! We dragged some others in... and
Bill's on with the hemishpere thing again!
This thread lives! : )
__
Steve
..

 

"Nathan W. Collier" <MontanaJeeper@aol.com> wrote in message news:11bhtpoqjca0cdc@corp.supernews.com...
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> > Sporting? > ) Who said this had to be sporting?
>
> exactly. this is about promoting your liberal agenda just as youve been
> taught to do.

No, it's about looking smart in front
of a dummy... big ego boost. Your
politics are just the icing on the cake...
Logic comes before politics, at least,
in *my* book.... : ) ... not so much
in yours, I can tell.

> > I have a hard time
> > believing that one post a day, apiece, is tearing you
> > guys up.
>
> ----, we agree on something! :-)

Look! We dragged some others in... and
Bill's on with the hemishpere thing again!
This thread lives! : )
__
Steve
..

 

"Peter Pontbriand" <TRIMsprocketATstormDOTcaTRIM> wrote in message news:a7qdnSvc8NSV-yTfRVn-2Q@storm.ca...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > Try reasoning with Nate... I'm sure you'll find him much more
> > reasonable than I am.
>
> That's just it - to me the preponderance of evidence is against there being
> a point bothering to try to reason with such an unreasonable individual.
> Continuing to butt your head against a rock in plain view of all of us is
> undermining my opinion of your own reasonableness.

Dude.. you're a -----. Go and sit on the porch. The
New Liberal Scientist is *not* a -----. As Newt said:
"Go Negative Early... Never Give Up".

BTW, thanks for sorta chiming in on my side... sorta.
__
Steve
..

 

"Peter Pontbriand" <TRIMsprocketATstormDOTcaTRIM> wrote in message news:a7qdnSvc8NSV-yTfRVn-2Q@storm.ca...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > Try reasoning with Nate... I'm sure you'll find him much more
> > reasonable than I am.
>
> That's just it - to me the preponderance of evidence is against there being
> a point bothering to try to reason with such an unreasonable individual.
> Continuing to butt your head against a rock in plain view of all of us is
> undermining my opinion of your own reasonableness.

Dude.. you're a -----. Go and sit on the porch. The
New Liberal Scientist is *not* a -----. As Newt said:
"Go Negative Early... Never Give Up".

BTW, thanks for sorta chiming in on my side... sorta.
__
Steve
..

 

"Peter Pontbriand" <TRIMsprocketATstormDOTcaTRIM> wrote in message news:a7qdnSvc8NSV-yTfRVn-2Q@storm.ca...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > Try reasoning with Nate... I'm sure you'll find him much more
> > reasonable than I am.
>
> That's just it - to me the preponderance of evidence is against there being
> a point bothering to try to reason with such an unreasonable individual.
> Continuing to butt your head against a rock in plain view of all of us is
> undermining my opinion of your own reasonableness.

Dude.. you're a -----. Go and sit on the porch. The
New Liberal Scientist is *not* a -----. As Newt said:
"Go Negative Early... Never Give Up".

BTW, thanks for sorta chiming in on my side... sorta.
__
Steve
..

 

"Peter Pontbriand" <TRIMsprocketATstormDOTcaTRIM> wrote in message news:a7qdnSvc8NSV-yTfRVn-2Q@storm.ca...
>
> "Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:746ue.590$5w3.567@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > Try reasoning with Nate... I'm sure you'll find him much more
> > reasonable than I am.
>
> That's just it - to me the preponderance of evidence is against there being
> a point bothering to try to reason with such an unreasonable individual.
> Continuing to butt your head against a rock in plain view of all of us is
> undermining my opinion of your own reasonableness.

Dude.. you're a -----. Go and sit on the porch. The
New Liberal Scientist is *not* a -----. As Newt said:
"Go Negative Early... Never Give Up".

BTW, thanks for sorta chiming in on my side... sorta.
__
Steve
..

 

"Stephen Cowell" <scowell@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iAoue.828$5w3.420@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
> The NOAA stuff had no ambiguity... you're stonewalling again.

horseshit. explain the difference!

> Now *you* have to
> post a link that shows that CFC emissions don't hurt
> the ozone layer

i never said that cfc couldnt hurt the ozone. i said that cfcs cant reach
the ozone due to their heavier atomic weight and i provided links from your
engineers that validated my statement.

--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://UtilityOffRoad.com