Comments on: Pro-con: Would Clinton be good choice for secretary of state?

By: in

in — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:10:57 +0000

yajps wfqmpyo ezktioy ntypxfw

By: zxglehjnf zvmbgpyl

zxglehjnf zvmbgpyl — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:45:19 +0000

bzxnvimo jupnbv whtdvxoj uqsoxiwdz svogjwx veckphros iveplku

By: Chas

Chas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:27:06 +0000

Nite all!!

By: Chas

Chas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:26:13 +0000

You know, if you think you got a case old man, why dont you take it up with your good lawyer buddy, GMC… Maybe he can set you straight… Cause if you take it to Ms. Nola, I got a hunch you might get laughed out of her office… especially, when a few bone digs will show you doing the same damned thing!!

By: Chas

Chas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:22:13 +0000

And now Regular, you come on this Blog trying to establish BOUNDARIES as to who you think can and cannot post here??? And that even after all of the sexually hinted posts you have made about Ms. Tara???

You sure you dont need new meds or something?

By: Chas

Chas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:19:14 +0000

BTW, Regular, how about the daily caustic remarks you and your buddies lash out at me re: my vocation… and your allegations of multiple nics(especially GRANNY GOOD WITCH)… Even though you have all been told MANY times, that I use only one nic here…

So, for you, and granny, and all of the rest of your boneheads, that makes YOU all part of a longer harssment than you are alleging from Cosmos… At least he is challenging you to defend your positions… and all you do is say: “Cosmos is no scientist!!” Even though you have never once attempted to prove your accusation…

As for your harassment BS, looks to me like its the pot calling the kettle… well, not brown….

By: StevenEDavis

StevenEDavis — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:54:44 +0000

Boxlock20,

I seriously doubt your explanation of your new nic. I would be happy to meet you for lunch. I am betting you are too cowardly to accept that invitation. If you are not, email me at: wilhelmwundt54@gmail.com . My guess is, I will never hear from you, given that you are such a shameless coward…

By: Rage

Rage — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:55:48 +0000

Tell that to Rage!

P.S. Okay, I get it. But you worded it a rather confrontational way, don’t ya think? ;)

By: Rage

Rage — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:32:42 +0000

Bawks–
Not a big fan of “say that to my face” challenges (ask XXX).

But you said you’d show up. Not just to him. To everyone.

I would have shown up. Hell, I’d bought him lunch.

You are a coward.

By: Rage

Rage — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:29:01 +0000

Tell that to Rage!

Uhm. . . why?

I’ve only stated the basic facts, and my own actions and perceptions regarding them.

I don’t deny passionate views of whatever/whoever/whenever, but, honestly, on this crap, if you’re looking for some grand political conflict, I just wanted to know what the hell was going on.

If I implied some things, well, I would only note that correlation is not causation. But I’m not a big believer in instant coincidences either.

Color me agnostic.

By: Boxlock20

Boxlock20 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:51:34 +0000

Ha, now looks who’s not showing up…and to a legitimate question too, not some hair brained dumb challenge.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:38:45 +0000

Already answered without being asked on the Pro/con gay marriage thread bawks.

I don’t re-fight battles you have already lost.

By: Boxlock20

Boxlock20 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:29:28 +0000

BJ…ha, I only helped you show yourself to be the complete childish fool you are, and I got a heck of a kick out of it too, it was easy.
Just for fun I challenge you now, not something so utterly ridiculous as to meet like hormone raged teenagers in a parking lot, but I challenge you to explain how calling someone out to meet in a stupid parking lot, to do whatever the hell you thought you were going to accomplish, is anything but asininely juvenile.
That’s my challenge to you BJ, run with it.
Oh, and BJ, I never have run “FROM” you, I don’t need to, you fall all over yourself all by yourself.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:48:27 +0000

That’s not what I heard there bawks. And my sources are better than you.

I don’t think anybody has trouble remembering you bawks.

From your running with hoax stories, to your running FROM me, you’re kinda famous.

Heh, you wet your bed. Now sleep in it.

By: Boxlock20

Boxlock20 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:27:15 +0000

By the way Capn, why are you and a few others so concerned with a slight change in nic?
Are you all so dim you can’t keep up and keep it straight? Does it cause you anxiety, a little paranoid maybe?

By: Boxlock20

Boxlock20 — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:21:57 +0000

Boxlock–
“Did you have to change your nic because your old one got banned?”

Nope Capn, never been banned, haven’t even had anything removed as some of you DimLibs have.
Decided that even blogging with sickos like, well you all know who you are, was not healthy and deleted my account. Then when I decided to return for ‘Opinion’ comments found a nic can not be reactivated….so the 20 was added. Which actually is just fine because the original nic was about a boxlock 20 ga. I purchased for this hunting season.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:14:51 +0000

BlueJay,

Thank you for the reminder.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/open-thread-319/#comment-316172

By: ANTI

ANTI — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:47:10 +0000

What, again?

Phillip can read here just like the rest of us.
——————

Tell that to Rage!

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:31:17 +0000

“I just emailed the publisher of the Wichita Eagle.”

What, again?

Phillip can read here just like the rest of us.

I’m sure he has seen your threats to “unleash hell” and “blog warfare” and other such tips enough to convince him, as you have convinced everyone else, that you are a housebound, socially dysfunctional, crank.

By: bth

bth — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:04:42 +0000

I remember vividly the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco many years ago. It had gotten widely reported, not only in our literaturebut also in the popular press. It was wrong. I had been one who had raised questions about the findings directy with some of the scientists involved. There were NO lies. There were errors. And the errors were discovered through the peer review (and replication) process.

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

As cosmos noted – it is VERY unusual to publsh a draft. The reason for doing so is to invite just the sort of careful and critical scrutiny this has received. that is why all of the supporting documents are published too.

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:50:52 +0000

Regular posted November 19, 2008 at 11:09 am
Oh yeah?

Name some of those proven lies.
——————
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-1119/#comment-471808

By: cosmos_originally

cosmos_originally — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:32:04 +0000

SolDevVB,

If you want to check the original peer-reviewed papers for “lies”, they’re listed in the “References” at the bottom of each chapter.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

By: Rage

Rage — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:06:50 +0000

Sol.
when you continue to assert that scientic research reviewed by hundreds other scientists is not merely erroneous or wrong, but “lies,” then no one of even normal intelligence need to take you seriously.

Any other academic disclipine where you want to accuse its practitioners of being part of some secret cabal? How about computer scientists?

Surely Donald Knuth is a fraud who just hasn’t been exposed yet! sarcasm off

By: SolDevVB

SolDevVB — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:51:33 +0000

Whoops, and here was my response to your first silly question that you continue to question…

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/pro-con-would-clinton-be-good-choice-for-secretary-of-state/#comment-471751

By: SolDevVB

SolDevVB — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:47:57 +0000

The IPCC report is derived from peer reviewed papers, but the draft is not. Now you’re just being silly cosmos.

To refresh your memory, you asked a question. I answered it. Now you are questioning your question.
Here is a link to your question, silly; http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/pro-con-would-clinton-be-good-choice-for-secretary-of-state/#comment-471743