From: MNMikeW on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b79f7d8$0$4875$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:30:54 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b79e473$0$4859$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:34:43 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b75ed2d$0$5077$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:34:03 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b7494aa$0$31017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:14:21 -0800, dene wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:7tiptpFq3qU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:nta8n5p2g17si7haj18qn7kif0vi0k4kre(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:04:37 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The TelePrompter "BS" hasn't been wiped off the table. Obama
>>>>>>>>>>> has a long way to go before he can claim to be weaned off of
>>>>>>>>>>> the TelePrompter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cripes Bert. Didn't you see the whipping he gave the repub
>>>>>>>>>> congressmen, all off the cuff?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whipping is subjective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree. Saw the whole thing. Both sides rose to the occasion
>>>>>>>> and it was a healthy exchange. "Whipping" is a gross
>>>>>>>> overstatement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The GOP lined up for an hour and asked him prepared question
>>>>>>> after prepared question. They gained no ground whatsoever. Call
>>>>>>> it whatever you want. The Republicans know what happened and will
>>>>>>> never invite him to another debate like this again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pulhleese. Like they're scared of Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are now.
>>>>
>>>> You keep telling yourself that Carbs.
>>>
>>> What do you think the chances are they'll ever ask him to another
>>> live, unscripted television debate?
>>
>> Pretty good.
>
> Ain't gonna happen.

Might happen on the 25th.


From: assimilate on

On 15-Feb-2010, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:

> I enjoyed this reply from your link:
> To paraphrase Pat Buchanan: 'If "articulate" and "law professor" are
> racist
> code words, then tell us the code words for "pencil necked, anti-American,
> narcissist, who has no temperament for the job, and who doesn't have
> enough experience to manage a lemonade stand"-'cause that's what we really
> want
> to say.'

heh

--
bill-o
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 15, 6:58 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:23:24 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > In article <4b7893f6$0$5103$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> >> You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live
> >> televised debate. Why is that? Could it be that you're so desperate
> >> to believe Obama is helpless without a teleprompter that you block
> >> out all evidence to the contrary? Perhaps your obvious bias is
> >> influencing your predictions about Obama's favorability ratings.
>
> > Ok, I'll play. It was not a debate. It was a ask a quesiton and
> > receive an answer session.
>
> Correct. It was actually tougher than a debate. They were lined up with
> carefully prepared question after carefully prepared question, and they
> still got nowhere. I am quite certain that the GOP will never invite
> Obama to a live, unscripted television debate of this type again.

I thought Obama sucked in that forum. All he did was deny everything,
no real rationale given, just deny. Looks good the the choir though, I
suppose.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 15, 7:23 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <c4b41158-aba5-4d06-9388-708c745cf...(a)d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>  Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 12:23 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b33ef4c0-206d-44a8-a5b2-84e3e97cc...(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 13, 10:39 am, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <6ea6aa0b-dd0f-4933-bfd0-2b763861e...(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 12, 2:01 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> > > > > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <7tljlbFg5...(a)mid.individual.net>,
>
> > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > >news:clark-13ED1E.09503912022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state..edu...
> > > > > > > > > In article <hl3k94$33...(a)speranza.aioe.org>,
> > > > > > > > > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >news:7tjvqjFuvU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > > >news:wclark2-C14662.20553411022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-stat
> > > > > > > > > > >e.ed
> > > > > > > > > > >u...
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Oh, bullshit, Jack. We've been over that again and again -
> > > > > > > > > > >> he's as
> > > > > > > > dumb
> > > > > > > > > > >> as paint.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm....what does that say about the intelligence of Gore,
> > > > > > > > > > > Kerry, or
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > American electorate who elected this dummy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I always enjoy watching idiots like Clark talk about other
> > > > > > > > > > people's
> > > > > > > > > > intelligence. What a boob.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yu and Intelligence don;t belong in the same sentence. Go find
> > > > > > > > > some.
>
> > > > > > > > I'm waiting for an intelligent answer to my question, Clark..
>
> > > > > > > > -Greg
>
> > > > > > > Well, Bush is the one they elected (supposedly), so it is a
> > > > > > > frightening
> > > > > > > indictment of the Americn electorate.
>
> > > > > > Hardly in the same league as electing any Labour Party candidate in
> > > > > > any context!
>
> > > > > Get back on your meds - quickly.
>
> > > > So you agree with me that electing Labour party candidates is a
> > > > frightening indictment of the British electorate.
>
> > > No, I agree that you need to start taking your medication again. You are
> > > becoming delusionally schizophrenic.
>
> > What qualifications do you presume to have to make such a diagnosis?
>
> Observation. Simple observation.

That fits you. All you do is observe. Unfortunately that is quite
obviously insufficient.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 15, 7:29 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> In article
> <e753220d-786f-46b0-a9e3-f0afab2c3...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>  Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 12:26 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b8033c9b-c8e1-42a5-9512-80e740b82...(a)15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >  Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 13, 10:43 am, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article <4b75eca0$0$5077$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>
> > > > >  Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:06:19 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <clark-EDF568.17402212022...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > > > > > state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > > > > > >> In article <MPG.25df7e125badc04a989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > > > > >>  BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> Literate and poor or ignorant and rich?
>
> > > > > > >> Well, you are ignorant, but I doubt you are rich.
>
> > > > > > > You'd be surprised how much this dumb ignorant idiot has.
>
> > > > > > You think money makes you a better person? Guess what, Paris Hilton
> > > > > > agrees with you.
>
> > > > > And bragging about (supposedly) having money is a sign of no class. Like
> > > > > pretending to have proof that your soul mate published in journals in a
> > > > > field he doesn't know anything about.
>
> > > > Kinda like some fool claiming that he is an accomplished person
> > > > because of the name of the school that gave him a degree. I, OTOH,
> > > > have actually published in the area of materials science, and that
> > > > fact for some reason bothers you...which can only mean you are envious!
>
> > > No, you have not. Fourth author in a chemistry proceedings of a
> > > conference you didn't even go to is absolutely NOT a materials science
> > > publication. Any more than mine in the IADR Proceedings makes me a
> > > dentist. Poor effort on your part.
>
> > > You suffer from a serious inferiority complex, that means your life is
> > > devoted to trying (unsuccessfully) to tear down anyone with even modest
> > > achievements in life. How very sad.
>
> > I see, so you found the ACS Symposium series presentation and
> > publication! Nope, doesn't make me a chemist, nor a seamstress (-
> > ster!) but silk is a material and the work done was in materials
> > science. There is one other publication in a much more significant
> > journal and another presentation at an international conference...I
> > even have a picture of me with everyone at the conference!
>
> And it sure doesn't make you even remotely anything to do with materials
> science. Chemists are always claiming to be "materials scientists",
> because there is more funding there than in their field. Silk is a
> textile, and this was a chemistry proceedings and not peer reviewed in
> the accepted way. Sorry - you lose. The other "publications" are equally
> bogus.
>
>
>
> > In any event, it remains interesting that you are so consumed by the
> > fact that I have done a bit of work in the area of materials science!
>
> Sorry, but you have not. I am more interested in the fact that you have
> to lie about it, in order to try to run down another academic. Doesn;t
> say a lot for your professional ethics, now does it?

You are the once forcing the issue here. I have offered nothing but
what I know. Your opinion is, as usual, meaningless. Materials science
is what it is, and lots of people get involved at various levels
(which holds true for any such areas). That the fact I have done some
materials science research, which to me is no big deal in any sense at
all, bothers you is both interesting and telling.