where is tm7?

[Mule 11]

read both of your links. nothing in either said he put even a grain of dust into the atmosphere. mules post said he had done it. i deal in fact not what ifs or fantasy.  now both of you are welcome to show me legit source that say hes done it. but keep those tin hats ready just in case

Nope, that was just the subject matter. Never stated he did or didn’t...

[Lloyd Smale]

 TN i believe that post was aimed at IG not you. at least i read it that way

[Lloyd Smale]

noe i went to school in america and i dont see in that statement that he threatened to or even just talked about it. but you can twist to fit your agenda because your only ally here is gone. im shaking my head at IG. hes been siding with you a bit too but i know hes just a bit angry and is way to smart to be buddying up to you for long.

Recently saw a report on Bill Gates spreading particles in the atmosphere to block sunlight

[/quote]

Nope, that was just the subject matter. Never stated he did or didn’t...
[/quote]

[Mule 11]

noe i went to school in america and i dont see in that statement that he threatened to or even just talked about it. but you can twist to fit your agenda because your only ally here is gone. im shaking my head at IG. hes been siding with you a bit too but i know hes just a bit angry and is way to smart to be buddying up to you for long.

Recently saw a report on Bill Gates spreading particles in the atmosphere to block sunlight

Nope, that was just the subject matter. Never stated he did or didn’t...
[/quote]
[/quote]

And as usual you can interpret what others say any way you want and throw up insults without naming names as a excuse. Right? Besides you edited what I said.

[Mule 11]

Recently saw a report on Bill Gates spreading particles in the atmosphere to block sunlight also backed by george sore ass. Looks like TM7 was right again...

This is my post...

[Lloyd Smale]

yup you said the article said "bill gates "SPREADING" particles in the atmosphere" your own words' if you wanted it to look like he was just talking about it you could have easily said so. when a carpenter is talking about building a house sometime in the future in the bar is he building a house??? just like your boyfriend you posted to stir up crap and look what it got him in the end. now until you can post real facts to show me he did it, like you said he did,  i wont waste my time with basic English lessons or waste my time arguing with someone who knows hes wrong and is just stirring the pot again.

[Mule 11]

I disagreed with TM7 on many things and agreed with him on others. You intentionally started a thread to bash him when he can’t defend himself. you and your new found pal being the primary instigator getting him banned then insulting others as is your M.O.

Also I would never refer to you for lessons in grammar or English...

[Mule 11]

When people bash the messenger instead of asking questions they end all reasonable debate. If instead, just following up on the information as I expected instead of the knuckle dragging derogatory flaming of myself and the source which was never looked at. I read the article and knew it did not say bill gates was actively releasing said particles into the atmosphere (although I surely don’t put anything past that lunatic) just that he wanted too with backing from George Soros...

[Lloyd Smale]

sorry but your just telling more lies. i didnt know he was banned when i posted it. if you want to call me a liar maybe ask bill because hes the one i first heard it from. but keep stiring. if i got him banned it had to be months ago because its been that long since he posted something that i even noticed.

I disagreed with TM7 on many things and agreed with him on others. You intentionally started a thread to bash him when he can’t defend himself. you and your new found pal being the primary instigator getting him banned then insulting others as is your M.O.

Also I would never refer to you for lessons in grammar or English...

[Mule 11]

sorry but your just telling more lies. i didnt know he was banned when i posted it. if you want to call me a liar maybe ask bill because hes the one i first heard it from. but keep stiring. if i got him banned it had to be months ago because its been that long since he posted something that i even noticed.

I disagreed with TM7 on many things and agreed with him on others. You intentionally started a thread to bash him when he can’t defend himself. you and your new found pal being the primary instigator getting him banned then insulting others as is your M.O.

Also I would never refer to you for lessons in grammar or English...

Nahhh, why call you anything at all?

[Drilling Man]

  I had to quit reading his post, because every one that I read made me dumber!

  I knew I couldn't allow myself to go any lower on the IQ scale, so I had to pass them by!

  I for one, am glad that he's gone!

  DM

[neckisred]

Am I the only one who saw this post?

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

[ironglow]

  From Lloyd; speaking about Gates' efforts to block the sun;

    noe i went to school in america and i dont see in that statement that he threatened to or even just talked about it.
 [/color]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


 

  Incidentally, the link from Popular Mechanics, said Gates was well into a program concerning sun blocking.  While Forbes said the program is already under way.
     It hardly seems he would start an effort to play interplanetary games, without discussing it with someone..

  Excerpt from the Forbes article, says he has already tossed cash into the effort, an dthe process is ongoing;

   "Microsoft’sMSFT -0.1% billionaire founder Bill Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that would potentially reflect sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect. The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), launched by Harvard University scientists, aims to examine this solution by spraying non-toxic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dust into the atmosphere — a sun-reflecting aerosol that may offset the effects of global warming.

   Reminder; although you may have been addressing me earlier, when TN offered his thoughts they should have been welcomed, after all, this is an open forum to all members.  ..And I for one am pleased that he is willing to contribute.

[Casull]

Am I the only one who saw this post?

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

Nope.  But, I consider it essential to question the source, just as I would question the science.  To not do so would be to just except everything at face value.

[Mule 11]

Am I the only one who saw this post?

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

The point was so well said that there was no reason to elucidate upon it...

[Mule 11]

if i have a question about a tank i come to you. the way we walk with Jesus is much different. its a very personal thing. most here dont like being lectured or being told there doing it wrong or are wrong because they dont share the meaning of something in the bible with you. Nobody here looking to be told there wrong and id bet even Jesus would give you a talking to about you constantly bragging on your qualifications. vanity is a sin and id bet at least most of us Christians already have a priest or pastor and didnt come to an outdoors site to find a new one. maybe follow team nelsons example. ive been here for MANY years and theres no one i respect more. he knows the bible at least as well as you. he went about it in a better way. IF THERE WAS A QUESTION he answered it. he never bragged about his qualifications . matter of fact many didnt even know he was a pastor. never once heard him brag. he knew no one came here to be saved and at the age most of us are your not going to change there beliefs so unless your answering a specific question someone else asked your just beating your chest and my teachings call that a sin. just like in this post that you felt the need to tell us your qualifications AGIAN. i dont dislike you and for the most part we get along. but only speaking for myself i think your religion posts get a bit old. not tm7 old but old non the less

there lies the difference. were a couple no-nonsense bull-headed sobs. but we dont post to impress anyone or dig around looking for some pretend expert to quote.
When involved in an exchange where it behooves you to prove a point, why not try to convince by either your own experience or call upon others who have expertise in the field?  Without backup, you're just talking..

  we dont pretend to be scholars either but we have stood up to that type and 99 times out of a hundred we send them running for backup while we stand on our own two feet.
   Naturally, if you lack grounding in a given subject, it would be fruitless to posture as if you had such expertise.  ..But did
    it ever occur to you that others may break off contact, simply because further discussion was useless?  For example..if I were in a discussion of physics with Elon Musk..he would likely, soon become very bored with anything I could offer.
 
  Its called being a man and it makes us dinosaurs. but at least we are t rex's and not one of those salad eating pos yuppy dinosaurs. Tm7? sorry to his fans and but buddy's that ran to him when nobody else would play nice with them, but that guy had something shook lose in his head. ive told him a number of times that id be awful nervous if he lived on my street. hell, in my state
     
    "Being a man", would acquiring a working knowledge of the subject and coming back with a cogent, hard to deny answer, or otherwise own up to your inadequacy in the field...and start asking questions..just as I would do with Elon Musk, or my cardiologist , whom I spent some time with this morning. ...Not my field, I had only questions for the doctor..he had the answers.
   Your remark concerning "salad eating pos yuppy dinosaurs" laid on others, perfectly illustrates the discussion at hand.

  So ..let's look back.. When I have questions about Law enforcement or a cowboy's work, I may and have inquired of Dee, since he has far more experience on those subjects that do I..

 You very well know that I have asked you questions concerning our electrical grid..and If I were to be puzzled,how to tune a 4 barrel carburetor..I would likely ask you for info.  I respect that some of you guys have much more experience in certain fields than I.

  However..as a turnabout, neither you or Dee offer the same courtesy.  You seem to resent it when I speak on Biblical things for
  instance.  By way of discussion, you know that I have a seminary degree, have taught Bible, regularly preach..am an elected elder in the church..and have held leadership positions (by election) in ministries for over 50 years.
   Yet when I offer a detailed explanation either one of you will viciously dispute the issue..or make a pointless debate of it..even
 though you offer no documented reason why it is in error, seeming to go purely on emotion.

  How about a bit of mutual respect?

When was your last question about a tank? I rest my case...

[neckisred]

Am I the only one who saw this post?

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

Nope.  But, I consider it essential to question the source, just as I would question the science.  To not do so would be to just except everything at face value.

In this case it's not so much the questioning of the source, but the reaction to the answer.............

[neckisred]

Am I the only one who saw this post?

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

The point was so well said that there was no reason to elucidate upon it...

e·lu·ci·date
verb
make (something) clear; explain.
"work such as theirs will help to elucidate this matter"

Yeah.....I had to look it up 

[teamnelson]

Nope.  But, I consider it essential to question the source, just as I would question the science.  To not do so would be to just except everything at face value.

Certainly, some sources may have more credibility on certain subjects than others. However, if one's automatic response to information that disagrees with their presupposition is to discredit the source's legitimacy, then the issue isn't the source, its the hearer. Who determines legitimacy? You, me, Lloyd? Is the government always credible? The news? Scientists? No, of course not; all have been proven to have lied to us, by intent or negligence. So if you must first screen the credibility of the sources, you will never find a credible source, and you will never actually get around to discussing the subject. I'm perfectly comfortable talking about something without having to first dissect "legitimacy" of sources; its nearly always a red herring and ad hominem on the part of those who simply cannot discuss something rationally.

[Lloyd Smale]

so then it would be ok to say i heard you worship satan with no real way to back it up just to start a conversation? proof? show me on a major news network. if it were really true we know that either fox or msn or both would have an army of reporters covering it. i deal with fact and reason nut fairy tails and made up bs being used to attack someone whether i believe in politics or not. i would think as a pastor you would want only truth and not gossip and outright lies. i get enough of that from the left. shouldnt have to deal with it here. it didnt happen and you know dammed well it didnt. so if you want to join the other tin foil hat bunch and personally attack me calling me arrogant then have at it. ive always had more respect for your level headedness then i have anyone else on this forum. maybe ive been fooled. all this fighting over a simple question as to where tm7 was and i was even called a lier over that. so who here is being arrogant and posting lies. it sure hasnt been me 

Lloyd, Is there any source that could give you new information, or information that conflicts with your current view, that you would deem "legit"?

Back when we used to teach logic and rhetoric in grammar school, your perpetual dismissal of sources as not being "legit" would be considered a logical fallacy, called an "ad hominem" or "against the man." If you cannot refute the content, you have to attack the authority, accuracy or character of the source. You may not realize you're doing it, but you've done it alot in this thread. It comes across as arrogant, as if you are the sole authority of what a legitimate source of information is.

I hope it doesn't pop into your head to then ask me what I consider a legitimate source to be, because that is just a transference of the ad hominem attack from sources to the speaker. And only doubles down that you'd be more interested in arguing with people than getting to the truth. Like I said, I hope that's not the case.

[Lloyd Smale]

Who determines legitimacy? You, me, Lloyd?

sure the heck isnt mule or tm7. both about standing on the steps of the hotel california.

[Mule 11]

Has anyone seen hei hei?

[ironglow]

From TM;

    " so then it would be ok to say i heard you worship satan with no real way to back it up just to start a conversation? proof? show me on a major news network. if it were really true we know that either fox or msn or both would have an army of reporters covering it. "   

  Although Fox is relatively dependable, how much do you rely on..the alphabet networks of MSN ?

  I guess to each his own...but especially after the last couple years, I would consider either Forbes or Popular Mechanics to be more
    credible than the alphabets.

[Lloyd Smale]

i have no clue who own popular mechanics and where there political beliefs lean. i dont even know which party would be more against it or even which country would be coming for his but the fastest. if he did something like that without our government be it conservatives or the libs id bet his new home would be at a federal government lodging house do i totally trust fox? nope but they sure as hell would be reporting it and trying to beat msn to the punch

From TM;

    " so then it would be ok to say i heard you worship satan with no real way to back it up just to start a conversation? proof? show me on a major news network. if it were really true we know that either fox or msn or both would have an army of reporters covering it. "   

  Although Fox is relatively dependable, how much do you rely on..the alphabet networks of MSN ?

  I guess to each his own...but especially after the last couple years, I would consider either Forbes or Popular Mechanics to be more
    credible than the alphabets.

[ironglow]

 Although they don't normally deal with political questions,  Popular Mechanics is one organ the military has used for at least 2-3 decades, to announce new weapons and/or procedures, and they have been quite dependable during that time.

   Published since 1902, Popular Mechanics has historically, been considered to be apolitical.. 
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics

   Here's a sample..   https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/

[Lloyd Smale]

and we know there corruption in dc over weapons choices and purchasing. have you ever heard PM call out the military over choices they make. or are they just there to brag them up? now im not saying this happens. i used to have a subscription for it over about 20 years but dont do any magazines any more other then the one the nra sends me monthly and honestly rarely read that one. i hate putting on a pair of glasses and cant read much without them. ill put them on to do bills and sundayfor church but thats about it.

Although they don't normally deal with political questions,  Popular Mechanics is one organ the military has used for at least 2-3 decades, to announce new weapons and/or procedures, and they have been quite dependable during that time.

   Published since 1902, Popular Mechanics has historically, been considered to be apolitical.. 
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Mechanics

   Here's a sample..   https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/

[Mule 11]

Apparently only those with no brain and full of shat are appreciated here...
Buuurrrppp...

[Dixie-Dude]

NASA determined several years ago that solar panels in space produce 10 times more electricity than on the ground or on earth.  They determined that a 1 square mile of solar panels could put out as much power in space as a nuclear reactor on earth.  They could beam the power to where it was needed via a laser or beamed microwaves.  Problem is anything flying through that beam would be destroyed, like a plane or birds.  They could however use these large arrays of these solar panels to block the sun.  Nothing ever came of it, but dusting the atmosphere and us breathing this crap as if falls back to earth is kind of stupid. 

Why not plant more trees?  A tree can absorb 1 ton of carbon per year.  Desalinate sea water with solar panels and plant trees in the deserts and water them with desalinated sea water, especially in deserts near oceans.  Crops could also be planted there and watered.  Saudi Arabia is starting a program to do this using water out of the Red Sea, solar panels and building new cities and crop lands in the process.

This would provide food, shade, and help reduce so called global warming.  Southern California, and northwestern Mexico or the Sahara desert areas for instance. 

[Bob Riebe]

Carbon in any form a is not threat to any thing; recent studies have said the Methane political paranoia is also Chicken Little news.
God wanabees are doing there best to be king and too much of today's population are the type of sucker street-hustlers prey on.

[Lloyd Smale]

must be losing my mind because i sure dont understand that rant. maybe switch back over to attacking dee for a while and letting this one rest. this ones a bit different and i feel kind of bad because you went off on dee and bob smith on the first page and didnt recognize me till the second page over 50 posts later

yup you said the article said "bill gates "SPREADING" particles in the atmosphere" your own words' if you wanted it to look like he was just talking about it you could have easily said so. when a carpenter is talking about building a house sometime in the future in the bar is he building a house??? just like your boyfriend you posted to stir up crap and look what it got him in the end. now until you can post real facts to show me he did it, like you said he did,  i wont waste my time with basic English lessons or waste my time arguing with someone who knows hes wrong and is just stirring the pot again.

Oh, I said SPREADING? Last post that you changed was? I don’t care as you are full of crap as usual... gee whiz, sure hope ya don’t lose what’s left of your mind again... Here is an idea. how about asking me or others to post information on this subject? Ya know, actually read sumptin. Derrr...