Discussion:
Noel death toll rises to 81; storm eyes Florida
(too old to reply)
Bob Brock
2007-11-01 02:29:30 UTC
Permalink
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Dan
2007-11-01 05:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...

Dan
Li RM
2007-11-02 05:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Dan
2007-11-02 23:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...

Dan
Bob Brock
2007-11-02 22:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
Li RM
2007-11-03 00:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.

It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.

Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.

Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Gunner Asch
2007-11-04 03:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....


Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Bob Brock
2007-11-04 03:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-04 03:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Gunner Asch
2007-11-04 07:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious. I'm not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.

I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.

Gunner


"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr
Bob Brock
2007-11-04 13:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious.
I'm
not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.
I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.
Well, I'm still waiting for you to try it. That's right, you're a useless
eater who can't pay his hospital/doctor bills. No wonder the others adore
you so.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-04 17:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious.
I'm
not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.
I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.
Well, I'm still waiting for you to try it. That's right, you're a useless
eater who can't pay his hospital/doctor bills. No wonder the others adore
you so.
Bobs, is it even remotely possible that you won't be able to pay your
doctor bills in the future?
Gunner Asch
2007-11-04 20:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by Li RM
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious.
I'm
not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.
I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.
Well, I'm still waiting for you to try it. That's right, you're a useless
eater who can't pay his hospital/doctor bills. No wonder the others adore
you so.
Bobs, is it even remotely possible that you won't be able to pay your
doctor bills in the future?
Odd..of the $27,000 med bill I had...Im down to less than $20,000
owed.

Seems like I AM paying my bills. Just more lies from Bobs Brockhead.
Which is why he is in the bozobin.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Bob Brock
2007-11-04 19:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:49:19 -0400, Li RM
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:45:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the
people
who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious.
I'm
not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.
I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.
Well, I'm still waiting for you to try it. That's right, you're a useless
eater who can't pay his hospital/doctor bills. No wonder the others adore
you so.
Bobs, is it even remotely possible that you won't be able to pay your
doctor bills in the future?
Odd..of the $27,000 med bill I had...Im down to less than $20,000
owed.
Seems like I AM paying my bills. Just more lies from Bobs Brockhead.
Which is why he is in the bozobin.
The liar calling someone else a liar. Get back with me in about 10 years
when you have paid your hospital bill. In the meantime, you just another
useless eater.

BTW, did you get health insurance yet?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 02:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:49:19 -0400, Li RM
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:45:30 -0400, "Bob Brock"
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of
the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the
people
who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
LiRM is very good at not getting the point even when it is obvious.
I'm
not
sure if it's an act or if he really is that dense.
If I'm not sure what someone's point is I ask.
It's something you might want to consider doing once in a while.
Obobba, are you counting the days until you take me out of your kill
filter - I see you can't help yourself from commenting about me.
Geezez, Bob - you're like a fucking 12 year old sometimes.
Retarded 12 yr old.....
Paid your doctor/hospital bills yet. Until then, you fall into the useless
eater group.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Gunner, I thought you were in The Bobs kill file???
Likely not. If nothing more than they would keep me out, simply
because they need abuse, like a Flagellate needs his hair shirt and
whip.
I only see their drivel when piggy backing on another post..and
occasionally find it amusing to give them their badly desired bitch
slap.
Well, I'm still waiting for you to try it. That's right, you're a useless
eater who can't pay his hospital/doctor bills. No wonder the others adore
you so.
Bobs, is it even remotely possible that you won't be able to pay your
doctor bills in the future?
Odd..of the $27,000 med bill I had...Im down to less than $20,000
owed.
Seems like I AM paying my bills. Just more lies from Bobs Brockhead.
Which is why he is in the bozobin.
The liar calling someone else a liar. Get back with me in about 10 years
when you have paid your hospital bill. In the meantime, you just another
useless eater.
BTW, did you get health insurance yet?
Kind of sad, the BOBS calling other peoples liars.

Meanwhile, their dreamgirl, Hillary, will provide health insurance for
all, right out of the BOBS pockets. Justice...?
Li RM
2007-11-03 00:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )

For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-03 01:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
Dan
2007-11-03 05:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-04 03:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...

Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Dan
2007-11-05 05:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source. And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.

Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-05 12:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source.
You don't say.
Post by Dan
And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
Indeed they are.
Post by Dan
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.
Hey, you just may have watched the news.
Post by Dan
Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...
Dan, is that what you do? Is tropical storm analysis your job?
Post by Dan
Dan
Perhaps what you don't know is that at the conclusion of a storm, all
of the information is gathered and a "Post Analysis" is performed.

That is what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't know about post
analysis.

And no, I'm not a "supergenius." I used to "actually DO" storm
analysis.
Dan
2007-11-05 17:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source.
You don't say.
I did say.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
Indeed they are.
Post by Dan
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.
Hey, you just may have watched the news.
Once or twice in my life.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...
Dan, is that what you do? Is tropical storm analysis your job?
No, but I do keep well-read on many subjects, especially science and
history.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Dan
Perhaps what you don't know is that at the conclusion of a storm, all
of the information is gathered and a "Post Analysis" is performed.
To be honest, I did miss that phrase, yet my comments still apply.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
That is what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't know about post
analysis.
Apparently you are talking through your hat.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
And no, I'm not a "supergenius." I used to "actually DO" storm
analysis.
So, there has NEVER been a case where the POST ANALYSIS pushed a storm
into a higher category? What does the post-analysis have to do with
"over-forecasts storms?" Do you even understand what "forecast" means?
Do you understand statistical methods?

And what did your comment have to do with the topic being discussed, to
which, supposedly, you were responding?


Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 02:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source.
You don't say.
I did say.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
Indeed they are.
Post by Dan
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.
Hey, you just may have watched the news.
Once or twice in my life.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...
Dan, is that what you do? Is tropical storm analysis your job?
No, but I do keep well-read on many subjects, especially science and
history.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Dan
Perhaps what you don't know is that at the conclusion of a storm, all
of the information is gathered and a "Post Analysis" is performed.
To be honest, I did miss that phrase, yet my comments still apply.
Sorry, Dan, but your comments are inapplicable at this point.
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
That is what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't know about post
analysis.
Apparently you are talking through your hat.
Apparently, I am not.
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
And no, I'm not a "supergenius." I used to "actually DO" storm
analysis.
So, there has NEVER been a case where the POST ANALYSIS pushed a storm
into a higher category? What does the post-analysis have to do with
"over-forecasts storms?" Do you even understand what "forecast" means?
Do you understand statistical methods?
Do you know just how stupid you made yourself look? You need to defer
to smarter people than yourself.
Post by Dan
And what did your comment have to do with the topic being discussed, to
which, supposedly, you were responding?
Dan
My comments had to do with your lunacy. I was trying to be polite,
but you make that quite impossible.
Dan
2007-11-06 02:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source.
You don't say.
I did say.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
Indeed they are.
Post by Dan
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.
Hey, you just may have watched the news.
Once or twice in my life.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...
Dan, is that what you do? Is tropical storm analysis your job?
No, but I do keep well-read on many subjects, especially science and
history.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Dan
Perhaps what you don't know is that at the conclusion of a storm, all
of the information is gathered and a "Post Analysis" is performed.
To be honest, I did miss that phrase, yet my comments still apply.
Sorry, Dan, but your comments are inapplicable at this point.
Dang. Foiled again by decree of the Hamster.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
That is what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't know about post
analysis.
Apparently you are talking through your hat.
Apparently, I am not.
Your claim, you demonstrate. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
And no, I'm not a "supergenius." I used to "actually DO" storm
analysis.
So, there has NEVER been a case where the POST ANALYSIS pushed a storm
into a higher category? What does the post-analysis have to do with
"over-forecasts storms?" Do you even understand what "forecast" means?
Do you understand statistical methods?
Do you know just how stupid you made yourself look? You need to defer
to smarter people than yourself.
I'll take that as an "I can't answer any of those questions."

Thanks.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And what did your comment have to do with the topic being discussed, to
which, supposedly, you were responding?
Dan
My comments had to do with your lunacy. I was trying to be polite,
but you make that quite impossible.
I fail to see any comments of yours supporting my sanity.

But we'll just call this interchange over, since you have taken it so
far off topic it isn't even in the same space-time continuum.

It has been fun toying with you as you wander along aimlessly, but to
important things I must go.

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 23:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
They'll name anything these days...
They'll say anything these days, especially after their head hits the
platter...
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Notice in the POST ANALYSIS, Katrina was lowered one storm category on
making land fall...
Perhaps NOAA/NWS/NHC over-forecasts storms.
Or perhaps hurricanes lose energy when disconnected from their energy
source.
You don't say.
I did say.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And perhaps hurricanes are reevaluated on an ongoing basis,
Indeed they are.
Post by Dan
changing category levels throughout their lives based on measurements
taken from the storms themselves.
Hey, you just may have watched the news.
Once or twice in my life.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Or, perhaps Hammie is a supergenius and knows more than the people whose
job it is to actually DO things...
Dan, is that what you do? Is tropical storm analysis your job?
No, but I do keep well-read on many subjects, especially science and
history.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Dan
Perhaps what you don't know is that at the conclusion of a storm, all
of the information is gathered and a "Post Analysis" is performed.
To be honest, I did miss that phrase, yet my comments still apply.
Sorry, Dan, but your comments are inapplicable at this point.
Dang. Foiled again by decree of the Hamster.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
That is what I'm talking about. Apparently you don't know about post
analysis.
Apparently you are talking through your hat.
Apparently, I am not.
Your claim, you demonstrate. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
And no, I'm not a "supergenius." I used to "actually DO" storm
analysis.
So, there has NEVER been a case where the POST ANALYSIS pushed a storm
into a higher category? What does the post-analysis have to do with
"over-forecasts storms?" Do you even understand what "forecast" means?
Do you understand statistical methods?
Do you know just how stupid you made yourself look? You need to defer
to smarter people than yourself.
I'll take that as an "I can't answer any of those questions."
Thanks.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
And what did your comment have to do with the topic being discussed, to
which, supposedly, you were responding?
Dan
My comments had to do with your lunacy. I was trying to be polite,
but you make that quite impossible.
I fail to see any comments of yours supporting my sanity.
But we'll just call this interchange over, since you have taken it so
far off topic it isn't even in the same space-time continuum.
It has been fun toying with you as you wander along aimlessly, but to
important things I must go.
Dan
Poor Dan. He thinks talk of meteorology, tropical cyclone analysis,
and post-analysis are off-topic in a thread about a hurricane.

No wonder he's teaching global warming and socialism in a middle
school. Poor Kids.
Gunner Asch
2007-11-07 07:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
It has been fun toying with you as you wander along aimlessly, but to
important things I must go.
Dan
Poor Dan. He thinks talk of meteorology, tropical cyclone analysis,
and post-analysis are off-topic in a thread about a hurricane.
No wonder he's teaching global warming and socialism in a middle
school. Poor Kids.
He does it for the perks.
Access to the poor kids.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Dan
2007-11-03 05:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.

Dan
Li RM
2007-11-03 06:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.

But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.

This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.

Dan is always asking for cites.

Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.

Cites out the fucking ass.

Then - when you give him one - this is what he says:

"Believe what you will".

LOL.

<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Dan
2007-11-05 06:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!

Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.

And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.

Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.

But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...


NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted

May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm

(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)

As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.

Dan
Li RM
2007-11-06 01:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.

Some meaning you in this case.
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.

Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.

That was written in *May*, Dan.

May.

A month before the season started.

It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?

Typical.
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.

I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.

That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.

Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.

You can't because I haven't.

Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Dan
2007-11-06 02:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.
Some meaning you in this case.
Which is totally inadequate. You make a statement, you provide the
legwork to back it up (or not). Me, I am lazy. But I am not so lazy as
to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, and I have 35 years of
evidence to support what I understand.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.
The data is unchecked, unpublished, and unsupported. Doesn't mean it
isn't true, mind you, but I don't go off and believe just any grad
student throwing stuff out on a web site, either. Especially one
without any actual support.

Besides, there is no data. A couple of heavily massaged tables and a
few pretty graphs. They really don't say a whole lot WRT the debate we
are having, anyway.
Post by Li RM
Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.
The claim was made that the season was both below normal and that
excessive forecasts were made. I provided cites, REAL cites, to suggest
otherwise on BOTH accounts. How, pray tell, is that "absurd?"
Post by Li RM
That was written in *May*, Dan.
May.
Yeah, like a FORECAST. The August one is slightly different, as was the
April one I posted a few posts ago... Go figure.
Post by Li RM
A month before the season started.
Yes, and?
Post by Li RM
It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Um, OK. Did you have a point?
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?
Typical.
Calling into question a messenger with an obvious political agenda who
presents unverified materials as "facts."

Hardly "shoot[ing] the messenger." Well, maybe not on your planet...

Funny, when I was presenting data reductions to the FDA, we had at least
two verifications: one that the transcribed (even electronically
transferred) data was the same as the primary recording device [which
itself was calibrated BEFORE and AFTER the test], and one that the
massaged presentation data matched the original tables. Two signatures
on each table and graph. And 4 VP signatures on each document - and let
me tell you, getting 4 VPs from 4 Departments and 4 disciplines to agree
on ANYTHING, much less verbiage that could sink the company (or kill a
patient or 99), is quite a feat.

So, understand that my requirements, while not quite that strict, are
considerably more than "Does he have his own hat..."
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.
I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.
That makes one of us.
Post by Li RM
That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.
What words?
Post by Li RM
Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.
Well, I do find it interesting you post a lot that mirrors his material,
so just because you don't get it directly from the original source (if
he is the origin) doesn't mean you don't use his material.
Post by Li RM
You can't because I haven't.
I can't what because you haven't what?
Post by Li RM
Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Tell me where I invented any "truth," whether I wanted it to be so or
not... I'll wait.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
So, about that supporting data?

Dan
Li RM
2007-11-06 04:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.
Some meaning you in this case.
Which is totally inadequate. You make a statement, you provide the
legwork to back it up (or not). Me, I am lazy. But I am not so lazy as
to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, and I have 35 years of
evidence to support what I understand.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.
The data is unchecked, unpublished, and unsupported. Doesn't mean it
isn't true, mind you, but I don't go off and believe just any grad
student throwing stuff out on a web site, either. Especially one
without any actual support.
Besides, there is no data. A couple of heavily massaged tables and a
few pretty graphs. They really don't say a whole lot WRT the debate we
are having, anyway.
Post by Li RM
Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.
The claim was made that the season was both below normal and that
excessive forecasts were made. I provided cites, REAL cites, to suggest
otherwise on BOTH accounts. How, pray tell, is that "absurd?"
Post by Li RM
That was written in *May*, Dan.
May.
Yeah, like a FORECAST. The August one is slightly different, as was the
April one I posted a few posts ago... Go figure.
Post by Li RM
A month before the season started.
Yes, and?
Post by Li RM
It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Um, OK. Did you have a point?
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?
Typical.
Calling into question a messenger with an obvious political agenda who
presents unverified materials as "facts."
Hardly "shoot[ing] the messenger." Well, maybe not on your planet...
Funny, when I was presenting data reductions to the FDA, we had at least
two verifications: one that the transcribed (even electronically
transferred) data was the same as the primary recording device [which
itself was calibrated BEFORE and AFTER the test], and one that the
massaged presentation data matched the original tables. Two signatures
on each table and graph. And 4 VP signatures on each document - and let
me tell you, getting 4 VPs from 4 Departments and 4 disciplines to agree
on ANYTHING, much less verbiage that could sink the company (or kill a
patient or 99), is quite a feat.
So, understand that my requirements, while not quite that strict, are
considerably more than "Does he have his own hat..."
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.
I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.
That makes one of us.
Post by Li RM
That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.
What words?
Post by Li RM
Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.
Well, I do find it interesting you post a lot that mirrors his material,
so just because you don't get it directly from the original source (if
he is the origin) doesn't mean you don't use his material.
Post by Li RM
You can't because I haven't.
I can't what because you haven't what?
Post by Li RM
Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Tell me where I invented any "truth," whether I wanted it to be so or
not... I'll wait.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
So, about that supporting data?
Dan
Dan - in his quest to completely evade the point - tosses out more
horseshit in one message then is collected after Ringling Brothers,
Barnum and Baily Circus shows up in town.

Amazing.

It isn't any wonder to me that when you were involved with the FDA
things were such a cluster fuck trying to get your team to agree on
anything - how could they with you in the mix?

Hey.

Dan.

Pay attention. Here comes *the point*:

A fucking *retard* could tell it was a slow hurricane season.

Without charts, graphs and supporting data.

But you're too much of a pompous ass to admit you're wrong.
Dan
2007-11-06 06:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.
Some meaning you in this case.
Which is totally inadequate. You make a statement, you provide the
legwork to back it up (or not). Me, I am lazy. But I am not so lazy as
to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, and I have 35 years of
evidence to support what I understand.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.
The data is unchecked, unpublished, and unsupported. Doesn't mean it
isn't true, mind you, but I don't go off and believe just any grad
student throwing stuff out on a web site, either. Especially one
without any actual support.
Besides, there is no data. A couple of heavily massaged tables and a
few pretty graphs. They really don't say a whole lot WRT the debate we
are having, anyway.
Post by Li RM
Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.
The claim was made that the season was both below normal and that
excessive forecasts were made. I provided cites, REAL cites, to suggest
otherwise on BOTH accounts. How, pray tell, is that "absurd?"
Post by Li RM
That was written in *May*, Dan.
May.
Yeah, like a FORECAST. The August one is slightly different, as was the
April one I posted a few posts ago... Go figure.
Post by Li RM
A month before the season started.
Yes, and?
Post by Li RM
It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Um, OK. Did you have a point?
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?
Typical.
Calling into question a messenger with an obvious political agenda who
presents unverified materials as "facts."
Hardly "shoot[ing] the messenger." Well, maybe not on your planet...
Funny, when I was presenting data reductions to the FDA, we had at least
two verifications: one that the transcribed (even electronically
transferred) data was the same as the primary recording device [which
itself was calibrated BEFORE and AFTER the test], and one that the
massaged presentation data matched the original tables. Two signatures
on each table and graph. And 4 VP signatures on each document - and let
me tell you, getting 4 VPs from 4 Departments and 4 disciplines to agree
on ANYTHING, much less verbiage that could sink the company (or kill a
patient or 99), is quite a feat.
So, understand that my requirements, while not quite that strict, are
considerably more than "Does he have his own hat..."
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.
I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.
That makes one of us.
Post by Li RM
That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.
What words?
Post by Li RM
Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.
Well, I do find it interesting you post a lot that mirrors his material,
so just because you don't get it directly from the original source (if
he is the origin) doesn't mean you don't use his material.
Post by Li RM
You can't because I haven't.
I can't what because you haven't what?
Post by Li RM
Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Tell me where I invented any "truth," whether I wanted it to be so or
not... I'll wait.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
So, about that supporting data?
Dan
Dan - in his quest to completely evade the point - tosses out more
horseshit in one message then is collected after Ringling Brothers,
Barnum and Baily Circus shows up in town.
Well, considering I didn't evade any points, I fail to understand your
colorful if inappropriate references above...

Or do you consider supporting my statements and refuting yours
"evad[ing] the point?"
Post by Li RM
Amazing.
You admit it! Admitting you have a problem is the first step to
recovery, they say.
Post by Li RM
It isn't any wonder to me that when you were involved with the FDA
things were such a cluster fuck trying to get your team to agree on
anything - how could they with you in the mix?
You are funny when you get flustered!
Post by Li RM
Hey.
Dan.
Ah, at long last. Drum roll please. And now, a commercial...
Post by Li RM
A fucking *retard* could tell it was a slow hurricane season.
Well, a fucking retard IS saying it was a slow hurricane season. I
disagree, and have posted cites and evidence for my statement. As well
as stating my conclusion and support reasonably clearly.
Post by Li RM
Without charts, graphs and supporting data.
That's why you posted a web site with charts, graphs, and a minimum of
(unverified andunsourced) supporting data...
Post by Li RM
But you're too much of a pompous ass to admit you're wrong.
So, you are saying, straight up, that 5 hurricanes with one month to go
is a slow hurricane season. Do I have that correct?

Now, of course, you could have actually made that precise statement.

But, of course, that is not what the site you gave said. It speaks
mainly of Tropical Cyclones, not hurricanes or even named storms. It
speaks of many esoteric, though possibly important, criteria. But it
never makes the claim that it is a SLOW hurricane season. LAST year
definitely was. The year before was an all-time record year (speaking
of the Atlantic, which is the easiest to get data for). This year set
some records, had an above-average number of named storms, and an
average number of hurricanes (including one that became a hurricane
closer to land than any before on record).

So, tell me again what your point was?

Dan
Li RM
2007-11-07 02:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.
Some meaning you in this case.
Which is totally inadequate. You make a statement, you provide the
legwork to back it up (or not). Me, I am lazy. But I am not so lazy as
to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, and I have 35 years of
evidence to support what I understand.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.
The data is unchecked, unpublished, and unsupported. Doesn't mean it
isn't true, mind you, but I don't go off and believe just any grad
student throwing stuff out on a web site, either. Especially one
without any actual support.
Besides, there is no data. A couple of heavily massaged tables and a
few pretty graphs. They really don't say a whole lot WRT the debate we
are having, anyway.
Post by Li RM
Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.
The claim was made that the season was both below normal and that
excessive forecasts were made. I provided cites, REAL cites, to suggest
otherwise on BOTH accounts. How, pray tell, is that "absurd?"
Post by Li RM
That was written in *May*, Dan.
May.
Yeah, like a FORECAST. The August one is slightly different, as was the
April one I posted a few posts ago... Go figure.
Post by Li RM
A month before the season started.
Yes, and?
Post by Li RM
It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Um, OK. Did you have a point?
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?
Typical.
Calling into question a messenger with an obvious political agenda who
presents unverified materials as "facts."
Hardly "shoot[ing] the messenger." Well, maybe not on your planet...
Funny, when I was presenting data reductions to the FDA, we had at least
two verifications: one that the transcribed (even electronically
transferred) data was the same as the primary recording device [which
itself was calibrated BEFORE and AFTER the test], and one that the
massaged presentation data matched the original tables. Two signatures
on each table and graph. And 4 VP signatures on each document - and let
me tell you, getting 4 VPs from 4 Departments and 4 disciplines to agree
on ANYTHING, much less verbiage that could sink the company (or kill a
patient or 99), is quite a feat.
So, understand that my requirements, while not quite that strict, are
considerably more than "Does he have his own hat..."
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.
I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.
That makes one of us.
Post by Li RM
That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.
What words?
Post by Li RM
Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.
Well, I do find it interesting you post a lot that mirrors his material,
so just because you don't get it directly from the original source (if
he is the origin) doesn't mean you don't use his material.
Post by Li RM
You can't because I haven't.
I can't what because you haven't what?
Post by Li RM
Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Tell me where I invented any "truth," whether I wanted it to be so or
not... I'll wait.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
So, about that supporting data?
Dan
Dan - in his quest to completely evade the point - tosses out more
horseshit in one message then is collected after Ringling Brothers,
Barnum and Baily Circus shows up in town.
Well, considering I didn't evade any points, I fail to understand your
colorful if inappropriate references above...
Or do you consider supporting my statements and refuting yours
"evad[ing] the point?"
Post by Li RM
Amazing.
You admit it! Admitting you have a problem is the first step to
recovery, they say.
Post by Li RM
It isn't any wonder to me that when you were involved with the FDA
things were such a cluster fuck trying to get your team to agree on
anything - how could they with you in the mix?
You are funny when you get flustered!
Post by Li RM
Hey.
Dan.
Ah, at long last. Drum roll please. And now, a commercial...
Post by Li RM
A fucking *retard* could tell it was a slow hurricane season.
Well, a fucking retard IS saying it was a slow hurricane season. I
disagree, and have posted cites and evidence for my statement. As well
as stating my conclusion and support reasonably clearly.
Post by Li RM
Without charts, graphs and supporting data.
That's why you posted a web site with charts, graphs, and a minimum of
(unverified andunsourced) supporting data...
Post by Li RM
But you're too much of a pompous ass to admit you're wrong.
So, you are saying, straight up, that 5 hurricanes with one month to go
is a slow hurricane season. Do I have that correct?
Now, of course, you could have actually made that precise statement.
But, of course, that is not what the site you gave said. It speaks
mainly of Tropical Cyclones, not hurricanes or even named storms. It
speaks of many esoteric, though possibly important, criteria. But it
never makes the claim that it is a SLOW hurricane season. LAST year
definitely was. The year before was an all-time record year (speaking
of the Atlantic, which is the easiest to get data for). This year set
some records, had an above-average number of named storms, and an
average number of hurricanes (including one that became a hurricane
closer to land than any before on record).
So, tell me again what your point was?
Dan
My point is that you're pompous ass, Dan.

A man who can't admit when he is wrong.

Who cites a prediction as evidence for events that have occured.

In short:

You're an asshole, Dan.

Live with it, small man.
Dan
2007-11-07 04:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
I provide a cite once on any particular topic and no, I don't go back
and dig them up because some are too lazy to go back and find them -
or google them on their own.
Some meaning you in this case.
Which is totally inadequate. You make a statement, you provide the
legwork to back it up (or not). Me, I am lazy. But I am not so lazy as
to believe extraordinary claims without evidence, and I have 35 years of
evidence to support what I understand.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Point out it's flaws if you can. The data is reasonable and valid.
The data is unchecked, unpublished, and unsupported. Doesn't mean it
isn't true, mind you, but I don't go off and believe just any grad
student throwing stuff out on a web site, either. Especially one
without any actual support.
Besides, there is no data. A couple of heavily massaged tables and a
few pretty graphs. They really don't say a whole lot WRT the debate we
are having, anyway.
Post by Li RM
Offering a cite (like the one below) that are predictions of the
hurricane season to come and not an analysis of the season passed is
absurd.
The claim was made that the season was both below normal and that
excessive forecasts were made. I provided cites, REAL cites, to suggest
otherwise on BOTH accounts. How, pray tell, is that "absurd?"
Post by Li RM
That was written in *May*, Dan.
May.
Yeah, like a FORECAST. The August one is slightly different, as was the
April one I posted a few posts ago... Go figure.
Post by Li RM
A month before the season started.
Yes, and?
Post by Li RM
It brings to mind the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with your
intelligence, baffle them with your bullshit".
Um, OK. Did you have a point?
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Now that's a really trustworthy cite. Especially the part at the top
crediting Rush Limbaugh and The Drudge Report for sending business his way.
Shoot the messenger because you don't like the message eh?
Typical.
Calling into question a messenger with an obvious political agenda who
presents unverified materials as "facts."
Hardly "shoot[ing] the messenger." Well, maybe not on your planet...
Funny, when I was presenting data reductions to the FDA, we had at least
two verifications: one that the transcribed (even electronically
transferred) data was the same as the primary recording device [which
itself was calibrated BEFORE and AFTER the test], and one that the
massaged presentation data matched the original tables. Two signatures
on each table and graph. And 4 VP signatures on each document - and let
me tell you, getting 4 VPs from 4 Departments and 4 disciplines to agree
on ANYTHING, much less verbiage that could sink the company (or kill a
patient or 99), is quite a feat.
So, understand that my requirements, while not quite that strict, are
considerably more than "Does he have his own hat..."
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
But we know from personal testimonials that Squirmy never gets his
material from Limbaugh...
I listen to Limbaugh infrequently. It's been months since I've even
heard a few minutes of his show and I haven't heard an entire episode
of his show in my lifetime.
I do find myself in agreement with him frequently when I do listen to
him, though.
That makes one of us.
Post by Li RM
That's about the extent of anything I've ever posted about Limbaugh
and it's a far cry from your words.
What words?
Post by Li RM
Feel free to post anything I've written to the contrary.
Well, I do find it interesting you post a lot that mirrors his material,
so just because you don't get it directly from the original source (if
he is the origin) doesn't mean you don't use his material.
Post by Li RM
You can't because I haven't.
I can't what because you haven't what?
Post by Li RM
Of course inventing truth where none exists simply because you'd like
it to be so is a character trait of liberal dems. It falls squarely
into line with other aspects of their delusional take on the world
they'd like to think they live in.
Tell me where I invented any "truth," whether I wanted it to be so or
not... I'll wait.
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
NOAA PREDICTS ABOVE NORMAL 2007 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON
13 to 17 Named Storms Predicted
May 22, 2007
"For the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA scientists predict 13 to
17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to
five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,"
said retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,
undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA
administrator. An average Atlantic hurricane season brings 11 named
storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
(Noel made 14 named storms, 5 hurricanes: 2x category-5 & 3x category-1)
As I said, believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a
horrible year, but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
So, about that supporting data?
Dan
Dan - in his quest to completely evade the point - tosses out more
horseshit in one message then is collected after Ringling Brothers,
Barnum and Baily Circus shows up in town.
Well, considering I didn't evade any points, I fail to understand your
colorful if inappropriate references above...
Or do you consider supporting my statements and refuting yours
"evad[ing] the point?"
Post by Li RM
Amazing.
You admit it! Admitting you have a problem is the first step to
recovery, they say.
Post by Li RM
It isn't any wonder to me that when you were involved with the FDA
things were such a cluster fuck trying to get your team to agree on
anything - how could they with you in the mix?
You are funny when you get flustered!
Post by Li RM
Hey.
Dan.
Ah, at long last. Drum roll please. And now, a commercial...
Post by Li RM
A fucking *retard* could tell it was a slow hurricane season.
Well, a fucking retard IS saying it was a slow hurricane season. I
disagree, and have posted cites and evidence for my statement. As well
as stating my conclusion and support reasonably clearly.
Post by Li RM
Without charts, graphs and supporting data.
That's why you posted a web site with charts, graphs, and a minimum of
(unverified andunsourced) supporting data...
Post by Li RM
But you're too much of a pompous ass to admit you're wrong.
So, you are saying, straight up, that 5 hurricanes with one month to go
is a slow hurricane season. Do I have that correct?
Now, of course, you could have actually made that precise statement.
But, of course, that is not what the site you gave said. It speaks
mainly of Tropical Cyclones, not hurricanes or even named storms. It
speaks of many esoteric, though possibly important, criteria. But it
never makes the claim that it is a SLOW hurricane season. LAST year
definitely was. The year before was an all-time record year (speaking
of the Atlantic, which is the easiest to get data for). This year set
some records, had an above-average number of named storms, and an
average number of hurricanes (including one that became a hurricane
closer to land than any before on record).
So, tell me again what your point was?
Dan
My point is that you're pompous ass, Dan.
Perhaps, to small minded people I can seem so.
Post by Li RM
A man who can't admit when he is wrong.
I admit when I'm wrong all the time I am wrong.
Post by Li RM
Who cites a prediction as evidence for events that have occured.
Um, no. You, evidently, took the same learn-to-read correspondence
course as Hamster.
Post by Li RM
You're an asshole, Dan.
I've been called worse by better than you. Sometimes I even deserved it...
Post by Li RM
Live with it, small man.
Wow! What a creative insult...

You SURE you are not Runner?

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 02:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Dan BOB?
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
The claims may appear extraordinary to the ignorant....
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Do you know where "home" is???
Post by Dan
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Kindly provide that page again... as I don't see it above. Thanks.
Dan
2007-11-06 06:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Post by Dan
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Now, let's see. Noel. That would be the 13th named storm of the
ATLANTIC Hurricane season, would it not...
Dan
And your point is?
Just pointing out the obvious (actually 14th, d'oh) to the people who
insist this hurricane season is lighter than usual...
Dan
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
"Unless a dramatic and historical flurry of activity occurs in
November and December, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC
year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
During past 30 years, only 1977 has had less activity to date Jan
1-Oct 31. (Update Oct 30*: IMAGE: January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone
Energy )
For the period of June 1 - Oct 31, only 1977 has experienced LESS
tropical cyclone activity than 2007..."
Believe what you will. I've posted my sources. Not a horrible year,
but certainly above average, with some record activity.
Dan
Record activity alright.
But from the standpoint of it being slower then shit floatin' upstream
in a frost insofar as hurricanes were concerned.
This is why it's almost a moot point to argue with the Bob's.
I'm Dan...
Dan BOB?
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Dan is always asking for cites.
Occasionally, under the criterion that extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proofs.
The claims may appear extraordinary to the ignorant....
Post by Dan
Post by Li RM
Cites, cites, cites, cites, cites.
That's about how many times I have asked in the last month, yes.
Post by Li RM
Cites out the fucking ass.
"Believe what you will".
So, you admit I ask for cites reasonably often, when needed, and you
have provided exactly one. Good record, for you.
Post by Li RM
LOL.
<knocking on Dan's head> Hey McFlyyyyyyy. Anybody homeeeeeeee.
Oh, I'M home!
Do you know where "home" is???
You know, I tell my middle school students that the adolescent humor
isn't funny the grown-ups the first time, and it is extraordinarily
tedious the 20th time. Take a hint, learn some new material.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Well, we see here what Squirmy's value for "out the fucking ass" is: 1.
And not just any one, mind you, but a personal web page of a graduate
student at Florida State University studying Meteorology.
Kindly provide that page again... as I don't see it above. Thanks.
You REALLY do not see it? Seriously. One of only two URLs in this
whole thread.

My Mk I eyeball picked it out here (without highlights), my newsreader
highlights it blue and underlined in the original, and you cannot find it.

OK, I'll take pity on you, here it is, copied and pasted from up above:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/



Wow! Just, wow...

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-03 01:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
Winston_Smith
2007-11-03 13:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-03 13:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
"Noel death toll rises to 81; storm eyes Florida..."
Winston_Smith
2007-11-03 20:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
"Noel death toll rises to 81; storm eyes Florida..."
There is no warming, no storms, no hurricanes. Noel must be a some
serial killer the cops caught.
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-04 03:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
"Noel death toll rises to 81; storm eyes Florida..."
There is no warming, no storms, no hurricanes. Noel must be a some
serial killer the cops caught.
Dodo.
Dan
2007-11-05 06:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
Beautiful parody!

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-05 12:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
Beautiful parody!
Dan
Lots of lying and back-slapping going on in the Bobs camp.
Dan
2007-11-05 17:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
Beautiful parody!
Dan
Lots of lying and back-slapping going on in the Bobs camp.
Snicker. Hammie just doesn't get it... So he blames those that do!

Dan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 02:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
Beautiful parody!
Dan
Lots of lying and back-slapping going on in the Bobs camp.
Snicker. Hammie just doesn't get it... So he blames those that do!
Dan
Dipdan, when you are talking tropical meteorology and tropical storm
analysis, I SO get it.

So try again.
Dan
2007-11-06 06:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Dan
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
So, Bobs, how many died in Florida?
None could have. There hasn't been any storms in the Atlantic so far.
Beautiful parody!
Dan
Lots of lying and back-slapping going on in the Bobs camp.
Snicker. Hammie just doesn't get it... So he blames those that do!
Dan
Dipdan, when you are talking tropical meteorology and tropical storm
analysis, I SO get it.
So try again.
Considering Winnie and I weren't talking tropical meteorology OR
tropical storm analysis above, I honestly do think you DON'T get it...

Man it's fun to be older and wiser! Kids today.

Dan
Winston_Smith
2007-11-03 13:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Why does God hate Bush so much?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-04 03:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Why does God hate Bush so much?
Why do you pretend to know the mind of God?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-11-06 02:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Why does God hate Bush so much?
Why do you pretend to know the mind of God?
Whinnie, why do you pretend to know the mind of God?
Winston_Smith
2007-11-06 03:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Why does God hate Bush so much?
Why do you pretend to know the mind of God?
Whinnie, why do you pretend to know the mind of God?
You get awfully lonely when I'm not around, don't you?
antihurricane
2007-11-04 15:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21526342/
Finally - The new anti-hurricane technology is development. PCT/
SK2006/000003 - A METHOD OF AND A DEVICE FOR THE REDUCTION OF TROPICAL
CYCLONES DESTRUCTIVE FORCE
Antihurricane Technology Fund
www.ahtfund.org
Loading...