|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 17, 2011 23:55:14 GMT -5
You don't have to open it. That's what great about it! Notice how I generally don't respond to, or even open your asinine threads anymore. This is for my own sanity. & if it sucks soooo bad, why do people find it interesting? Many enjoy what I post and have told me that. You don't speak for everyone. [/color][/quote] I didn't say it "sucks." The thing is, I have no problem with people posting things that they believe in. If you want to believe in aliens, fine. Like I've said in many of your "alien" threads, I don't disbelieve in aliens. I believe that there is some sort of life out there. My only question is if we're actually being contacted by them. Somehow, I doubt it. I have a feeling that if legitimate "aliens" came to our planet, they wouldn't be fearful of our tiny little weapons (including atomic bombs) as they have the technology to fly ACROSS THE GALAXY so they probably would be like, "What, bitch?" to anything we throw at them. If people believe in the 2012 stuff, that's all fine. Go for it. Just don't provide me with information that is either not true or says, "this isn't that big of a deal," and try to present it to me as proof. The "biggest solar flare of the year" is not news. Us getting increased radiation from the sun is not news. These things happen regularly. They are not evidence of some sort of mass eminent chaos. I don't go into these threads you post and rip the CONCEPT. I rip the way you present it. You consistently present things that are factually incorrect, outdated, or just irrelevant, and then you get mad at people when they call you out on it. I don't personally believe the 2012 stuff, but that doesn't mean I'm going to completely bash the PEOPLE who do. I will, however, bash them if they don't know what the hell they're talking about. It doesn't take some sort of solar expert to understand that "the biggest solar flare so far this year" in FEBRUARY is not a big deal whatsoever.[/quote] I barely post any threads anymore because of you and Hulk trolling it up in them..
I never post things that are irrelevant or outdated, they're always something new that is currently being talked about, and most of the time it's coming off as factual information. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Feb 18, 2011 9:15:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Feb 18, 2011 11:18:37 GMT -5
Hulk, no offense, but. You saw the other topic, clearly titled "2012" was locked, and you know this thread is going to bring argument and it's going to end up locked as well, but yet you still post it. Who cares, if it's not happening to you. Then what's the big deal. Now if your radio/sat were out now, then yeah, I could see you posting it, but it seems like you're posting this just to have a reason clearly start another 2012 thread, and let the argument ensue. your name is justin beiber. Therefore all your posts from now on are invalid. [/beiberhate]  |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 18, 2011 11:29:23 GMT -5
I barely post any threads anymore because of you and Hulk trolling it up in them. Thank god for that. I never post things that are irrelevant or outdated, they're always something new that is currently being talked about, and most of the time it's coming off as factual information. Just a couple days ago, you posted an article from 2009 that basically said that the solar flares we will be experiencing in the next few years will be LESS than what we have experienced in recent years. That is both irrelevant (as what you were trying to show is scientific evidence for a 2012 disaster) AND outdated (2009). ... And that's just off the top of my head from THIS week. It's not even worth my time to go through and point out the countless times you have done this in the past. Sometimes I really wonder whether you even pay attention to what you post. |
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 18, 2011 12:15:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 18, 2011 12:24:12 GMT -5
I didn't say that everything you post has no backing to it. I simply said that some of the things you post are just blatantly not to your point, such as the thing I mentioned.
Pay attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 18, 2011 12:32:59 GMT -5
I didn't say that everything you post has no backing to it. I simply said that some of the things you post are just blatantly not to your point, such as the thing I mentioned. Pay attention.
That is both irrelevant (as what you were trying to show is scientific evidence for a 2012 disaster) AND outdated (2009). "Pay attention to what you post.. |
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Feb 18, 2011 13:00:57 GMT -5
... You just said" Just a couple days ago, you posted an article from 2009 that basically said that the solar flares we will be experiencing in the next few years will be LESS than what we have experienced in recent years.
That is both irrelevant (as what you were trying to show is scientific evidence for a 2012 disaster) AND outdated (2009). "Pay attention to what you post.. Oska, that's from one of your replies to the 2012 thread. So what you're quoting Kliquid on is 100% accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 18, 2011 13:36:20 GMT -5
I honestly don't even believe this kid is real.
He's like some machine created to make me hate people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 18, 2011 13:38:20 GMT -5
... You just said" Just a couple days ago, you posted an article from 2009 that basically said that the solar flares we will be experiencing in the next few years will be LESS than what we have experienced in recent years.
That is both irrelevant (as what you were trying to show is scientific evidence for a 2012 disaster) AND outdated (2009). "Pay attention to what you post.. Oska, that's from one of your replies to the 2012 thread. So what you're quoting Kliquid on is 100% accurate.
I mean, the reason I posted that is because of what Hulk said, " No one with any credibility has predicted pole shifts, solar storms, twin suns, planets hitting us, etc..... In fact, scientists have said the exact opposite and have published rock solid proof that nothing will happen. "
Nobody predicted Pole shifts? ( for this sun, in case you're wondering. ) False, NASA did in 2003/2004/2005 for 2012/2013 just like the one that happen on the Sun in 2001.
Nobody predicted Solar Storms? False, we've been having a solar storm since, 2009 as far as I can remember.
Nobody predicted twin suns?... False, I posted a link.
Nobody predicted planets hitting us? They were saying that Apophis could hit us in the near future, not 2012/2013, but they changed that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Feb 18, 2011 13:46:58 GMT -5
...There isn't anything wrong with that I said..? Go back and re-read. Oh my  ing god. I'm going to repeat this again because you apparently missed it even though you QUOTED IT in the other thread............. science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/THIS LINK, WHICH YOU POSTED, clearly says a few things that I'm specifically talking about, which you regularly do... 1. It's from 2009, so it's out of date, which you ADMITTED. 2. It says that this solar cycle will "have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," which shows that it is not anything new. 3. The article talks REPEATEDLY about 2013, not 2012. "2012" is mentioned ONCE in the article, and as an approximate date for something other than what the article is talking about. --------------- So basically, what you posted was: - Out of date - Factually opposite to what you were trying to prove - Not even about the year you always talk about PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. |
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 18, 2011 13:49:31 GMT -5
...There isn't anything wrong with that I said..? Go back and re-read. Oh my ing god. I'm going to repeat this again because you apparently missed it even though you QUOTED IT in the other thread............. science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/THIS LINK, WHICH YOU POSTED, clearly says a few things that I'm specifically talking about, which you regularly do... 1. It's from 2009, so it's out of date, which you ADMITTED. 2. It says that this solar cycle will "have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," which shows that it is not anything new. 3. The article talks REPEATEDLY about 2013, not 2012. "2012" is mentioned ONCE in the article, and as an approximate date for something other than what the article is talking about. --------------- So basically, what you posted was: - Out of date - Factually opposite to what you were trying to prove - Not even about the year you always talk about PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. |
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Feb 18, 2011 13:53:49 GMT -5
I'm sorry this is just great, and I cant believe its just being allowed to continue haha.
and to stay on topic: I dont see it effecting me so yea...its whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Feb 18, 2011 14:06:42 GMT -5
lol.. You get so angry over the internet. That's sad. All you have to do is actually comprehend what I post and why. You're complaining about me posting something with an " old " date of 2009, when that has NOTHING to do with why I posted it, dates mean nothing. I posted it because of what Hulk was saying? What's so hard to understand, he stated, I'm not repeating it because I've said it several times now & so I found several links proving him wrong that show people do state the things he said were not stated..
 You posted it in an effort to prove that people are saying that there is upcoming danger. The article says the exact opposite. If you understood the things you posted, you would realize that. But you don't, so we're stuck here while your head is up your ass. |
|
