Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-12 at 11:37:04
QUOTE(indecisiveMan)
I never said you claimed any of thsoe things. The argument is that it won't affect the globe. I am asking where in that document(or even your "evidence" you provided) did it say anything about the globe. If you want the truth, scientists have said not even testing has been done to prove it could ever even happen. It is in your "evidence" as well as my proof. And you know that don't you. Circular logic, eh? Well I call it aserting my points so people get them(although for once it doesn't work on you 
). You seem to be replying more and more about my comments and making a joke than actually debating the global affects. I wonder if you are running short on "proof" now? Well I know I am right and I will wait to see when you finally throw in the towel. Which for your sake had better be soon. I also find that you make many inferences. Which in a debate is absurd. All I can hope for your sake is that you just forget about this topic and move on to somewhere where your own logic won't contradict your arguments. Heh, how does it go umm....oh yes. Much obliged(double hint? or something...?)
). You seem to be replying more and more about my comments and making a joke than actually debating the global affects. I wonder if you are running short on "proof" now? Well I know I am right and I will wait to see when you finally throw in the towel. Which for your sake had better be soon. I also find that you make many inferences. Which in a debate is absurd. All I can hope for your sake is that you just forget about this topic and move on to somewhere where your own logic won't contradict your arguments. Heh, how does it go umm....oh yes. Much obliged(double hint? or something...?)No, it won't be smashed into bits but it will affect it none the less. No matter how you try to disguise it with fancy semantics.
Glad that you don't thoroughly read... even when it shows my point afterall. The nuclear misshaps many times have effects on close environmental systems. And those will reflect on a bigger scale, if you want to put it that way. Now if it's local or global it doesn't matter, 'cause one affects the other no matter in wich way you put it, especially when talking 'bout nukes.
And I make inferences... wonderful.
Now go back and read the exact same post from where this was quoted from. Assumptions are far worse, imo.QUOTE(IndecisiveMan's partial quote from same post as above)
... If you want the truth, scientists have said not even testing has been done to prove it could ever even happen. It is in your "evidence" as well as my proof. ...
I've presented evidences many times while you only tried once. Don't plead for ignorance. It just doesn't fit you. Or does it?
QUOTE(Another of IndecisiveMan's partial quote from same post as above)
... All I can hope for your sake is that you just forget about this topic and move on to somewhere where your own logic won't contradict your arguments. Heh, how does it go umm....oh yes. Much obliged(double hint? or something...?)
Look who's talking about contradicting himself... gee, you sure try to cut some new crap from time to time.
*Rants*You present a single biased link, while I've dealt with a few already and say that it's 'indoubtable evidence'!?! Give me a break! Just don't act stupid. If you want to cut it short in here, merely admit that you don't have a good grasp of knowledge in this area (as I've been asking all along). Or simply stop posting as you said it yourself.
You're making me seriously wonder to ask for this thread's closing by a staff personel member, since it's getting sidetracked to useless meaning (mostly due to your circled logic). *Ponders*
Side note (kinda off-topic): I guess that being part of the TQM (read Total Quality Management, wich involved environment, safety engineering and obviously quality) Dept. or even being an ISO 14001 auditor while working at my country's Phillips won't give me much credit, now does it?
*Meh*Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-04-13 at 22:01:45
QUOTE
The nuclear misshaps many times have effects on close environmental systems. And those will reflect on a bigger scale, if you want to put it that way. Now if it's local or global it doesn't matter, 'cause one affects the other no matter in wich way you put it, especially when talking 'bout nukes.
Hmm changing our argument are we?
. I wonder why....In your dumb little article it says that not enough study has been done to prove anything large could happen. In my article it says the same. That is the meaning of QUOTE
... If you want the truth, scientists have said not even testing has been done to prove it could ever even happen. It is in your "evidence" as well as my proof. ...
OK? Jeez you don't seem to understand too much, eh? Hmph. Close the thread? Be my guest. I could care less. I have alreayd proved you wrong so my job here is done. Now I am just waiting until you throw in the white flag. Might I mention...there you go calling me names again...*sighs*. Is that all you can say??? I think it is. 
Hmm I think you have lost your beginning argument. Somehow you got onto these damn "local environments". I notice you keep revising your argument then providing a link to your new argument. I say stick with what you first started saying. Hmph. Sad you can't just call it quits when you are wrong.Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-04-13 at 22:10:35
I watched the SuperVolcano movie thing on the Discovery channel and that could be a local disaster, but it had affects on the whole world.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-15 at 07:27:27
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Hmm changing our argument are we? I wonder why....In your dumb little article it says that not enough study has been done to prove anything large could happen. In my article it says the same. ...
I wonder why....In your dumb little article it says that not enough study has been done to prove anything large could happen. In my article it says the same. ...Wich 'dumb' article? I presented a few already... and btw, calling it that won't decrease it's value. I can't say the same for yours. Wich part of 'biased sample' you didn't get?
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
OK? Jeez you don't seem to understand too much, eh? Hmph. Close the thread? Be my guest. I could care less. I have alreayd proved you wrong so my job here is done. Now I am just waiting until you throw in the white flag. Might I mention...there you go calling me names again...*sighs*. Is that all you can say??? I think it is. Hmm I think you have lost your beginning argument. Somehow you got onto these damn "local environments". I notice you keep revising your argument then providing a link to your new argument. I say stick with what you first started saying. Hmph. Sad you can't just call it quits when you are wrong.
Hmm I think you have lost your beginning argument. Somehow you got onto these damn "local environments". I notice you keep revising your argument then providing a link to your new argument. I say stick with what you first started saying. Hmph. Sad you can't just call it quits when you are wrong.*Roflmao* Ah! Your "job here is done", that's was a laugh for sure.
I "throw the white flag"? Assumptions, assumptions... where can you get with'em? Nowhere here, that's where. *Smirks & chuckles*
Somehow I "got into these local environments"... That's what they really are no way you put it. Imagine the Amazon forest being dizimated by a nuke and it wouldn't affects us globally? You sure know your stuff... or simply not.
"Act locally, to improve globally" doesn't rings any bells? Gee, I guess not. Altough it's one of the environment's most known mottos around. 
Not revisiting, but instead presenting new PoV's that further support my angle. Nvm then, I guess you still haven't grasped the concept of real debate since you cling with your circled logic all the day 'round instead.
QUOTE(Devilesk)
I watched the SuperVolcano movie thing on the Discovery channel and that could be a local disaster, but it had affects on the whole world.
Altough I haven't seen those in T.V. from what I know it would resemble a lot with a "Nuclear Winter" occurrence (read starting with the ashes fallout).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by indecisiveman on 2005-04-16 at 02:38:36
*Sighs* there you go again. Still trying to "argue"(if that is what you call it....). You are done for. Stop. It is over. Your links sucked. They proved me right. You change your argument from global to all of a sudden "Oh wait but local environment would hurt it globally". Stick with your first argument. I haven't made any "circular logic" comments so stop being drunk. This thread is done. Back up what you say(since you apparently can't in a good argument) and close the therad alreayd. It is done. Over. You lose. I will wait for my white flag.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-04-18 at 10:24:50
QUOTE(indecisiveMan)
*Sighs* there you go again. Still trying to "argue"(if that is what you call it....). You are done for. Stop. It is over. Your links sucked. They proved me right. You change your argument from global to all of a sudden "Oh wait but local environment would hurt it globally". Stick with your first argument. I haven't made any "circular logic" comments so stop being drunk. This thread is done. Back up what you say(since you apparently can't in a good argument) and close the therad alreayd. It is done. Over. You lose. I will wait for my white flag.
Btw, a link with 30 years on top is reliable (aka your 'indeniable proof')? Cut the dust you're tryin' to throw around to everyone else's eyes.
*Roflmao* Other than that... no comments. If you don't know what they are, there's no real point in arguing it further.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2005-04-18 at 20:25:18
>>Thread Closed
due to numerous requests.
due to numerous requests.