Date: 20 Apr 2007 02:44:14 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:23:34 GMT, still me <wheeledBobnospamo.com> wrote: > On 19 Apr 2007 01:31:31 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> wrote: > > >>> Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling. >> >>Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" >>part of my request. > > Dig around, you can find something factual. Oh wait, that might > require work on your part and you always want other people to do your > work for you. I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of providing same. > >>Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points >>clearly. > > Don't presume I'd want to speak for you. It would be embarrassing. At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right? >>And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got >>any data to support one or the other? > > Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, > is. Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens your credibility. Just so you know. >> >>See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information? > > You're not being attacked, you're being highlighted. Right. So give me something useful then fi you can.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
