RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > The RadioReference Tavern > Politics

Politics Anarchists unite. Come argue how inefficient the political system is here

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 7:15 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Angry This farkin IDIOT is unbelievable

HELLO??? The freakin planet has been cooling off for 11 years now, IDIOT.

Obama the IDIOT broadens push for climate change pact



By BEN FELLER – 38 minutes ago
L'AQUILA, Italy (AP) — Rallying rich and developing nations alike, President Barack Obama wants the world's top polluters to keep driving toward a deal to halt global warming.
Nearing six months on the job, Obama has some momentum: a new agreement among developed and emerging nations to cap rising global temperatures, plus good will from his peers for repositioning the U.S. as an aggressive player in the debate.
Yet when Obama helps lead a gathering of the world's major economies here Thursday, he will run smack into the same old problem: Neither the wealthy nor the countries in search of their own footing think the other side is doing enough. And only when the pollution emitters work together on a binding plan will a climate strategy work, experts say.
Even victory came with a setback on Wednesday. The G-8 nations set a goal of cutting all greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but developing nations refused to go along.
Confronting global warming — a trend scientists say could unleash devastating droughts, floods and disease if left unchecked — is a dominant theme again at this year's G-8 summit of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said Thursday the G-8 countries must come forward with financing for poorer nations to change their carbon-heavy growth patterns and adapt to the effects of global warming. He said the G-8 must do both if developing countries are to cut their own emissions.
The G-8 on Wednesday recognized for the first time that average global temperatures shouldn't exceed 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial times. But the leaders made no commitments to do anything in the nearterm to reach that goal and they made no firm financial or technological commitments for poor countries.
Obama will take part in discussions all day on climate and a host of economic issues, and the number of countries represented at the table will just keep growing.
First, the traditional industrialized powers will expand their forum to other strategic economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, plus a special invitee, Egypt.
And Obama later will help lead a forum of major economies that also includes Australia, Indonesia and South Korea. Together, including the U.S., the represented countries account for about 80 percent of the emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.
The results this week will be a pivotal marker of what could happen in talks in December in Copenhagen, when the United Nations tries to conclude a new worldwide climate deal.
"This will also be an opportunity for the president and the other leaders to discuss what they can do collectively to add political momentum to the negotiations," Mike Froman, a national security aide leading the administration's G-8 efforts, said ahead of Thursday's events.
The two blocs — the richest countries and the fastest growing ones — did strike an important agreement Wednesday. Their unified position now is that global temperature should be kept from rising by more than 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius).
That's the point at which the Earth's climate system would fall into perilous instability, according to the United Nations' chief panel on climate change.
The U.S. and the other G-8 nations set a new goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050, part of their global goal of a 50 percent cut.
More steps by developed and developing countries will be announced Thursday, Froman said.
But the emerging countries are refusing to commit to specific reduction targets.
They are upset that the industrialized G-8 has not been forthcoming on either midterm emissions reductions — well before 2050 — or pledges of financing and transferring technology to the developing world. And they worry that major reductions could hamper their economies.
"Support from the G-8 is only the first step in what is likely to be a long and difficult process," said Guy Caruso, a senior adviser for the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.
"The Major Economies Forum recognizes this reality," he said. "The bottom line is that the industrialized countries will need to provide the incentives to the emerging economies."
Obama began his agenda Thursday by meeting with Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to discuss climate change, Iran and other issues.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged that Silva gave no ground on the greenhouse gas-reduction question. He said, however, that Obama believes there is "still time in which they can close the gap on that disagreement" before the December meeting in Copenhagen.
Gibbs said Obama also urged Silva to use his influence to try to move Iran away from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. He said Obama noted Brazil's close trading ties with Iran and told Silva that the relationship between Brazil and Iran offers a unique opportunity to reiterate the G-8's stance on Iran.
The leaders meeting in Italy have said Iran must not seek to create nuclear weapons and must loosen restrictions on its news media.
Obama and Silva met for 30 minutes before joining other world leaders at the three-day summit. Iran was not invited to the summit.
The Silva meeting was a late add. It came during the slot when Obama was to have met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who returned home to deal with an outbreak of ethnic violence.
Hu's departure is seen by analysts as weakening the chances that the U.S. and other G-8 countries can advance climate talks at this summit with China and a few of its close peers.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:29 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pachanga22 View Post
HELLO??? The freakin planet has been cooling off for 11 years now
I'm no GW freak, but anyone who doesn't realize the planet has DEFINITELY warmed over the past 11 years needs to get their head out of the sand.

If anyone thinks the planet has COOLED, then they are past that point -- and just stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
I'm no GW freak, but anyone who doesn't realize the planet has DEFINITELY warmed over the past 11 years needs to get their head out of the sand.

If anyone thinks the planet has COOLED, then they are past that point -- and just stupid.
Any facts to back that up?
__________________
MASTRTECH
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:48 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Yep - check any source you'd like of actual weather observations from the ground through the upper-levels of the atmosphere, and none show a net cooling for the past 11 years.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:55 AM
brandon's Avatar
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,408
Angry Sierra Chalie Alpha Mike

In my opinion the so-called "man made" global warming crisis is a scam.
No different than the Y2K paranoia of the late 1990s.

The day before the House was to vote on a controversial energy bill destined to be the largest tax hike in American history, it was revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency had suppressed an internal report challenging the entire global warming myth.
Power Line - Obama's EPA Quashes Climate Change Science

The media keeping hush hush about it
Media Ignore EPA Suppressing Skeptical Global Warming Report | NewsBusters.org
__________________
ScanRiverside - solarix.net
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
        
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 11:05 AM
Astrak's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 1,520
Default

Manbearpig.
__________________
WWW.APSN.US
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:09 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon View Post
In my opinion the so-called "man made" global warming crisis is a scam.
You won't get an objection from me, I work with it daily. What I'm saying is that to claim the atmosphere is COOLING is just as much a scam.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Default try reading this then

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

I'll wager Alan Carlin knows a lot more about it than any of us.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 12:49 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 398
Default

There is no definitive proof to either theory of a major warming or cooling. We need more time, more data, and less overzealous people from both sides of the argument.

What was recently revealed was that the ice shelf in Antarctica is actually growing, not shrinking, despite the pieces of ice that have broken off (which is a regular occurrence in both the Arctic and Antarctica and for a very long time).

What we can do is reduce pollution because while it is possible global warming may not be happening (at least as a result of our emissions) but it is ruining the air. I live in an area that frequently is in the top 5 most polluted metropolitan areas of the United States. We've had acid rain in this state. We don't need to be breathing that kind of air.
__________________
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn..."
~Gone With the Wind

Terrell

"Ham radio is one of the few slices of insanity that you actually have to test into..."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 1:16 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pachanga22 View Post
Lot of good points about non-GreenhouseGas methods of warming the atmosphere, but again shows that we are not in a cooling trend. We ARE warming up. The WHY is what people should be debating, because if you ignore the FACT that we are warming, you simply cannot hold your own.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 1:41 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
Lot of good points about non-GreenhouseGas methods of warming the atmosphere, but again shows that we are not in a cooling trend. We ARE warming up. The WHY is what people should be debating, because if you ignore the FACT that we are warming, you simply cannot hold your own.
I listened to a Herman Kane interview with Alan Carlin. I don't believe you read very well. Try again, below.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2009, 1:51 PM
N_Jay's Avatar
Not Posting
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Outside the big city in the Midwest
Posts: 10,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
. . .The WHY is what people should be debating, because if you ignore the FACT that we are warming, you simply cannot hold your own.
Yes, but for as many who refuse to accept that we are warming, there are several time as many who refuse to accept that we don't know why, and are just as happy to assign blame.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 6:11 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pachanga22 View Post
I listened to a Herman Kane interview with Alan Carlin. I don't believe you read very well. Try again, below.
I read well.

Putting a line in that says "Temperatures have cooled" is easy to do. Proving it is impossible, because it's wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 6:53 AM
N_Jay's Avatar
Not Posting
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Outside the big city in the Midwest
Posts: 10,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
I read well.

Putting a line in that says "Temperatures have cooled" is easy to do. Proving it is impossible, because it's wrong.
Did you read the report posted?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 8:06 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
I read well.

Putting a line in that says "Temperatures have cooled" is easy to do. Proving it is impossible, because it's wrong.
Read this then.


An Inconvenient Voice: Dr. Alan Carlin

Ever hear of Alan Carlin? Probably not, and that is the way the Obama Administration wants to keep it. Dr. Carlin is an Environmental Protection Agency veteran who recently wrote a damaging report, warning that the science behind climate change was questionable at best, and that we shouldn’t pass laws that will hurt American families and hobble the nation’s economy based on incomplete information.
Despite its promise to put science above politics, the Administration has suppressed Carlin’s report, banned him from writing or speaking about climate change, told him to forget about attending any meetings that addressed his main job function—climate change—and gave him a new assignment: updating a grants database. One supposes that, by dedicating its distinguished scientists to data-entry tasks, Obama’s EPA is able to free up true-believing interns to do its research.
Until recently, Dr. Carlin’s assignment was to research climate change issues for the agency. As part of this responsibility, he prepared a 98-page report earlier this year questioning the need for the agency to regulate CO2. His main argument—buttressed by citation after citation of peer-reviewed science—was that the agency’s earlier argument for regulating was based on incomplete science that ignored much more recent (and contrary) studies.
EPA responded by burying the report. As for Dr. Carlin himself, he was put under a strict gag order by superiors. They forbade him from writing, speaking or e-mailing about global warming to anyone outside his group at EPA. Now that his comment has been leaked (available here), the truth can come out.
We spoke to an embattled Dr. Carlin on the phone today, and, though he does fear losing his job because of his opinion, he has the strength of his beliefs. He told us that in 40 years of working for the government, he can’t remember any other time such pressure has been put on him. But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.
“I’ve been involved in public policy since 1966 or 1967,” he said. “There’s never been anything exactly like this. I am now under a gag order.”
As for travel, “it’s been made abundantly clear that I was not to attend anything to do with climate change.” When he did attend a conference in Washington that was open to the public, he was reprimanded by a superior who told Dr. Carlin that he had “shown poor judgment” in daring to ask a question.
He does maintain a good sense of humor. He told us he had just been interviewed on radio and that the reporter had said “we hear you’ve been fired” to which he responded, “I haven’t heard that myself, but your information may be better than mine.”
That Dr. Carlin’s fate should befall any civil servant is frightening. It is doubly frightening when the person is a respected scientist who is simply trying to do his job when it is needed most. At the same time EPA is looking to regulate CO2 as a health hazard, Congress is considering an even more intrusive climate change bill based on many of the same erroneous and out-dated assumptions identified in Carlin’s report.
House leadership ramrodded the Waxman-Markey bill through on Friday, with virtually no meaningful debate allowed. The Heritage Foundation estimates the legislation will inflict massive damage to a U.S. economy already on the ropes. It passed with only a seven vote margin. One wonders if it would have survived, if countervailing voices like Dr. Carlin had been allowed to be heard.
The EPA gag order—made clear in the emails between Dr. Carlin and his superior (available here), also demonstrates that President Obama’s promise to put truth above politics has now been forgotten.
You can read the comment that your government did not want you to see, all 98 pages of it, here. In the executive summary, on page V, he clearly refers to the supposed relationship between carbon dioxide and “greenhouse gases.”
As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data.
If this comment was proven to be suppressed, it could force the EPA to dismiss the entire comment review period and start over.
Dr. Carlin’s problems are far from unique. He is one of many who pay the price of Al Gore’s insistence that “the science is settled” on climate change, that we should no longer debate the issue. The media has happily gone along with this suppression. News reports present the questionable relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change as absolute fact. Skeptics are derided as “deniers” and are treated in the same way Galileo was by the Inquisition for suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun. Today in President Obama’s America, a modern-day Galileo has been told to shut up and go away.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 10:33 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,175
Default

Does this mean all the Freon stashes will be less valuable?
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 10:44 AM
Ray_Air's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pachanga22 View Post
HELLO??? The freakin planet has been cooling off for 11 years now, IDIOT.

Obama the IDIOT broadens push for climate change pact



By BEN FELLER – 38 minutes ago
L'AQUILA, Italy (AP) — Rallying rich and developing nations alike, President Barack Obama wants the world's top polluters to keep driving toward a deal to halt global warming.
Nearing six months on the job, Obama has some momentum: a new agreement among developed and emerging nations to cap rising global temperatures, plus good will from his peers for repositioning the U.S. as an aggressive player in the debate.
Yet when Obama helps lead a gathering of the world's major economies here Thursday, he will run smack into the same old problem: Neither the wealthy nor the countries in search of their own footing think the other side is doing enough. And only when the pollution emitters work together on a binding plan will a climate strategy work, experts say.
Even victory came with a setback on Wednesday. The G-8 nations set a goal of cutting all greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but developing nations refused to go along.
Confronting global warming — a trend scientists say could unleash devastating droughts, floods and disease if left unchecked — is a dominant theme again at this year's G-8 summit of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said Thursday the G-8 countries must come forward with financing for poorer nations to change their carbon-heavy growth patterns and adapt to the effects of global warming. He said the G-8 must do both if developing countries are to cut their own emissions.
The G-8 on Wednesday recognized for the first time that average global temperatures shouldn't exceed 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial times. But the leaders made no commitments to do anything in the nearterm to reach that goal and they made no firm financial or technological commitments for poor countries.
Obama will take part in discussions all day on climate and a host of economic issues, and the number of countries represented at the table will just keep growing.
First, the traditional industrialized powers will expand their forum to other strategic economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, plus a special invitee, Egypt.
And Obama later will help lead a forum of major economies that also includes Australia, Indonesia and South Korea. Together, including the U.S., the represented countries account for about 80 percent of the emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.
The results this week will be a pivotal marker of what could happen in talks in December in Copenhagen, when the United Nations tries to conclude a new worldwide climate deal.
"This will also be an opportunity for the president and the other leaders to discuss what they can do collectively to add political momentum to the negotiations," Mike Froman, a national security aide leading the administration's G-8 efforts, said ahead of Thursday's events.
The two blocs — the richest countries and the fastest growing ones — did strike an important agreement Wednesday. Their unified position now is that global temperature should be kept from rising by more than 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius).
That's the point at which the Earth's climate system would fall into perilous instability, according to the United Nations' chief panel on climate change.
The U.S. and the other G-8 nations set a new goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050, part of their global goal of a 50 percent cut.
More steps by developed and developing countries will be announced Thursday, Froman said.
But the emerging countries are refusing to commit to specific reduction targets.
They are upset that the industrialized G-8 has not been forthcoming on either midterm emissions reductions — well before 2050 — or pledges of financing and transferring technology to the developing world. And they worry that major reductions could hamper their economies.
"Support from the G-8 is only the first step in what is likely to be a long and difficult process," said Guy Caruso, a senior adviser for the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.
"The Major Economies Forum recognizes this reality," he said. "The bottom line is that the industrialized countries will need to provide the incentives to the emerging economies."
Obama began his agenda Thursday by meeting with Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to discuss climate change, Iran and other issues.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged that Silva gave no ground on the greenhouse gas-reduction question. He said, however, that Obama believes there is "still time in which they can close the gap on that disagreement" before the December meeting in Copenhagen.
Gibbs said Obama also urged Silva to use his influence to try to move Iran away from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. He said Obama noted Brazil's close trading ties with Iran and told Silva that the relationship between Brazil and Iran offers a unique opportunity to reiterate the G-8's stance on Iran.
The leaders meeting in Italy have said Iran must not seek to create nuclear weapons and must loosen restrictions on its news media.
Obama and Silva met for 30 minutes before joining other world leaders at the three-day summit. Iran was not invited to the summit.
The Silva meeting was a late add. It came during the slot when Obama was to have met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who returned home to deal with an outbreak of ethnic violence.
Hu's departure is seen by analysts as weakening the chances that the U.S. and other G-8 countries can advance climate talks at this summit with China and a few of its close peers.
If you want to see a "farkin idiot", just read your own posts. Don't take this personal,but you need help. Maybe you are young and just need to grow up?

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 12:22 PM
N_Jay's Avatar
Not Posting
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Outside the big city in the Midwest
Posts: 10,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray_Air View Post
If you want to see a "farkin idiot", just read your own posts. Don't take this personal,but you need help. Maybe you are young and just need to grow up?

Mirror time!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 3:24 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N_Jay View Post
Did you read the report posted?
Yes. The data it uses was specifically chosen because it matches the cooling theory. Nobody (in a position where there is no research funding pro/con GW) believes that to be true though. Ask anyone working in a weather job that doesn't have government or private industry money supporting them...

Or use common sense and look at surface temps over the last 10 years. They aren't cooling.

Or just surf until you find something that matches your desires to post on RR - and you will find
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2009, 4:35 PM
N_Jay's Avatar
Not Posting
   
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Outside the big city in the Midwest
Posts: 10,285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale View Post
Yes. The data it uses was specifically chosen because it matches the cooling theory. Nobody (in a position where there is no research funding pro/con GW) believes that to be true though. Ask anyone working in a weather job that doesn't have government or private industry money supporting them...

Or use common sense and look at surface temps over the last 10 years. They aren't cooling.

Or just surf until you find something that matches your desires to post on RR - and you will find
You don't have to look very hard.

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? • The Register

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hyd...vhrr_ssta.html

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ (Notice the mean line for the last 8 to 10 samples. What is the direction?)

BTW . . .
Did you know that the NOAA temperature reporting stations have strick requirments when they are installed.
i.e. Not too close to paved areas, not to close to a building or HVAC exhaust, etc.

Did you know that once installed these requirements are never checked, so when an open field with a temperature station gets paved and therefore shows an increased (and inacurate) temperature sample, that data is happily included in the totals. As is when the building next door gets an air conditioner and the exhaust blows right on the temperture probe.

Hmmmm, go figure!

EDIT:
Before you try pegging me as some "The iceage is comming" fool, let me tell you that I firmly believe;
1) That we don't know what the long term temperature trents realy are.
2) That we don't know what is or has ben causing the warming trend over the last several decades, nor the recent slight reversal.
3) That we don't know if that trend is reversing or continuing
4) That we don't know which, if any of our temperature prediction models are any good
5) That we don't have any difinitive proof that man's actions are increasing overall temperatures
6) That a few degree increase (or decrease) will really have any significant effect on the overall planets health.

I also strongly believe that this topic has been politicised to the point that MOST of the information provided to the masses, even that sought out by people believing they are getting good information is seriously tainted,
AND,
this distortion is occuring in both directions.

Last edited by N_Jay; 07-10-2009 at 5:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions