Global Warming and the Rise of Sea level

[Kelzie]

Where did you people take your chemistry classes?

Water is possible one of the strangest substances on earth. Most substanced contract as they cool down, and expand as they heat up because the more excited molecules take up more space.

Water, on the other hand is the opposite. Once it cool down to 4C, it starts to expand. Likewise, once it warms up to 4C, it starts to contract. It doesn't expand both ways.

 

[Zebulon]

Is your inspiration for your name Zebulon Pike by chance?

Zebulon, leader of the Lost Tribe of Israel, who took his people into the desert, and was never heard from again... though Pike was a cool guy. :mrgreen:

I imagine a general simulation that doesn't need to take in every detail is probably easier to do.

It's like predicting that it's going to be cold in the winter, versus trying to pinpoint the temperature right now (assuming you don't have something to cheat with...like a thermometer).

Not saying they're right, just pointing out why they might well be able to predict the generic climate 20 years from now, without being able to be right about whether there's rain coming in...

A general simulation is MUCH easier to do, and very often wrong, ESPECIALLY when extrapolated over time, as you're compounding the errors inherent in the generalization of your data.

In one of the recent Discover magazines, it has an article about a waterslide manufacturer that build a waterslide for a theme park. Worked perfectly. The theme park wanted an exact duplicate for another of their parks on the other side of the country, so the manufacturer built another one, with computerized accuracy down to millimeters.

It didn't work.

Water sprayed out of the thing, forcing them to redesign one part of it to keep it from drenching people under it.

Why did it do this there, and not at the other park?

They have no idea. They say it MIGHT have something to do with dust particles being more prevalent in the new park. Maybe.

If they can't work out the dynamics of a small, contained chaotic system like a waterslide, how on EARTH can they claim to be able to figure out a massive chaotic system 20 years from now?

Can't be done.

 

[Alastor]

Water, on the other hand is the opposite. Once it cool down to 4C, it starts to expand. Likewise, once it warms up to 4C, it starts to contract. It doesn't expand both ways.

In a controlled environment where you heat the water from say... 35 degrees F to 60 degrees F, so that the water is neither frozen nor evaporating, and no air gets trapped in it, it does indeed expand.

In nature, I'm not sure that's the case. In a vacuum however, that's still true, even for water.

 

[Kelzie]

In a controlled environment where you heat the water from say... 35 degrees F to 60 degrees F, so that the water is neither frozen nor evaporating, and no air gets trapped in it, it does indeed expand.

In nature, I'm not sure that's the case. In a vacuum however, that's still true, even for water.

It's true that there are variations in volume in the degree range for one particular state. However, I was making a blanket statement about the volume of two different states, and the volume of a particular mass of solid water will always be greater that the volume of the same mass of liquid water. However, if I had continued reading past the first page than I would have seen that had already been pointed out. So nevermind.

 

[Zebulon]

Alastor:

Here are some of the many links I've come across. Note that I'm not posting from crackpot sites, but from real scientific institutions and colleges.

http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/greenhouse.html

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/barron.html

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismaslin.html

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html (read down the bottom, about chemicals impact vs. solar impact in climactic change)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html

 

[Alastor]

Hey, Zeb!

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to peer into them just now, but I will.

Thank you for providing them.

 

[Zebulon]

Hey, Zeb!

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to peer into them just now, but I will.

Thank you for providing them.

Not a problem my friend. :mrgreen:

 

[teacher]

Hey Kelzie.

Where did you people take your chemistry classes?

Water is possible one of the strangest substances on earth. Most substanced contract as they cool down, and expand as they heat up because the more excited molecules take up more space.

Water, on the other hand is the opposite. Once it cool down to 4C, it starts to expand. Likewise, once it warms up to 4C, it starts to contract. It doesn't expand both ways.

Post #18

Water increases in volume as it heats. Because the valence shell gains electrons. Water also grows in volume as it freezes. The closely packed molecules attaining a crystalline structure. So....your both right.

Is this incorrect? High school. Chemistry, 11th grade. Organic chemistry, 12th grade. I remember stuff. So 4c is the turning point. I always wondered that. So that means water takes up the least volume at 4c, right?


And since your so damn smart: I was watching Jeopardy a while back and a contestant answered (in the form of a question, of course)that matter has three forms, gas, liquid, and solid. That would be wrong, wouldn't it? They credited him with a correct answer.

 

[teacher]

CanadianGuy.

You started this thread. So I don't have to explain the premise.

FiremanRyan asks the question:

just a question....if water expands as it freezes, wouldn't the melting of our polar caps, in theory, lower the sea level?

To which YOU answer:

No the water expands in heat. Search the partical model of matter it will help you out. :mrgreen:

After that is a bunch of posts on the water subject, and I throw my two cents in with:

Water increases in volume as it heats. Because the valence shell gains electrons. Water also grows in volume as it freezes. The closely packed molecules attaining a crystalline structure. So....your both right.

Now many have addressed this water subject, to which I will now dub "The Great Water Debate". (I've named 6 now, 4 more and I'll have a top ten of sorts. So soon I'll be naming about anything). But you single poor ol me, teacher, of the massive brain out with:

Oh ok but nothing was ever said about water freeze it had nothing ot do with the topic

So I guess what I'm asking is: You picking on me? Now I don't mind a bit. What's one more nemesis on this site for me. I kinda like it actually. Keeps me on my toes.

And since no one answered FiremanRyans' question:
Hey FiremanRyan.
Mr. Ryan, or can I call you Fireman,

The Artic ice sheet is indeed floating on water. Now as I'm sure you know, ice floating in water only has about 1/10 of its mass above water. So as the ice melts it most assuredly does take up less volume. But that is negated by the displacement of water by the 1/10 above water ice. See? Now the Antarctic ice sheet is up to three miles thick. But it sits atop land. Antarctica. So most of all the melting Antarctic ice sheet would indeed raise the sea level.

So now CanaidianGuy I think that this so-called "Great Water Debate" does fit in with YOUR threads name, "Global Warming and the Rise of the Sea Level."

Which again leads me to beg the question, "Are you picking on me"?

I keep telling everyone Vague has a CPU somewhere with all this stuff in memory which helps proves what I, teacher, of the massive brain, have in my memory, and like I said before, I remember stuff. The only other correct response on "The Great Water Debate" that I've seen is the young waif Kelzie, and SHE took me to school. Heads up boys, cute and smart.

Kelzie, move to the head of the class.
Class dismissed.

 

[Kelzie]

CanadianGuy.

You started this thread. So I don't have to explain the premise.

FiremanRyan asks the question:


To which YOU answer:



After that is a bunch of posts on the water subject, and I throw my two cents in with:

Now many have addressed this water subject, to which I will now dub "The Great Water Debate". (I've named 6 now, 4 more and I'll have a top ten of sorts. So soon I'll be naming about anything). But you single poor ol me, teacher, of the massive brain out with:



So I guess what I'm asking is: You picking on me? Now I don't mind a bit. What's one more nemesis on this site for me. I kinda like it actually. Keeps me on my toes.

And since no one answered FiremanRyans' question:
Hey FiremanRyan.
Mr. Ryan, or can I call you Fireman,

The Artic ice sheet is indeed floating on water. Now as I'm sure you know, ice floating in water only has about 1/10 of its mass above water. So as the ice melts it most assuredly does take up less volume. But that is negated by the displacement of water by the 1/10 above water ice. See? Now the Antarctic ice sheet is up to three miles thick. But it sits atop land. Antarctica. So most of all the melting Antarctic ice sheet would indeed raise the sea level.

So now CanaidianGuy I think that this so-called "Great Water Debate" does fit in with YOUR threads name, "Global Warming and the Rise of the Sea Level."

Which again leads me to beg the question, "Are you picking on me"?

I keep telling everyone Vague has a CPU somewhere with all this stuff in memory which helps proves what I, teacher, of the massive brain, have in my memory, and like I said before, I remember stuff. The only other correct response on "The Great Water Debate" that I've seen is the young waif Kelzie, and SHE took me to school. Heads up boys, cute and smart.

Kelzie, move to the head of the class.
Class dismissed.

For the love of god teach, you're going to make me blush. And for the record, yeah, I suppose I might have missed you when you were "on vacation". Maybe. A little.

 

[Kelzie]

Okay, since it's slightly relevant to water, and states of matter, etc., I have to share what my seven year old sister said.

My mom's a geological engineer and always throwing us into science crap. So my sister and brother are enrolled in this "science camp", and they learned about elements the other day. My sister asks my mom about states of matter, because they learned that there was such a thing as gold gas, which, to a seven year old, is a little confusing. So my mom starts putting the state of matter in terms of water, which they can understand. She then adds, "You know, even oxygen is in all the states"

My sister thinks for a minute, and responds,

"It's a good thing oxygen is in all the states. Or else they couldn't breathe!"

:rofl Oh my god classic. Kids say the coolest thing.

Anyway, I'm sure no one thinks it's funny but me. Oh well...I'll get over the rejection somehow.

 

[stsburns]

Global "warming" is a crock. :mrgreen:

Heat is energy. Putting more energy into a system as chaotic (in the mathematical sense) as our Earth's biosphere has UNKNOWN results. Scientists believe they can tell what the Earth's climate will be like 20 years from now, when they can't tell me if it's going to RAIN over the weekend with any sense of accuracy???

I can show all sorts of data that just as easily shows that Earth will cool down as warm up. Enviornmentalists are just fixated on the "warming" data, because it's been parroted like mantra for so long, that they choose to ignore the other possibilities.

I will freely admit that global "warming" will do SOMETHING. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it'll have to go SOMEWHERE. Where is anyone's guess.

Water evaporates, becomes clouds, it rains, process repeats! Right On! Hey did you know they do the 7 day forcast with a 32 processor computer! No wonder why they don't know whats going to happen! The computers that produce the results ONLY choose randome scenarios, and for meterologists they just come on TV and tell everyone what they heard through the grapevine! I have visted one of my local TV studios, and was supprised of what i heard!

 

[ncallaway]

The only other correct response on "The Great Water Debate" that I've seen is the young waif Kelzie, and SHE took me to school. Heads up boys, cute and smart.

Kelzie, move to the head of the class.
Class dismissed.

Awww..teach..I'm hurt. My information appears to have been accurate...but no mention? Kelzie was indeed much more specific than I was...

Thank God we solved that bit about what water does. I mean, this is really breaking new ground!

Excellent work everyone. I doubt teacher, of the massive brain, himself even could have come to this conclusion on his own (aww...who am I kidding, there's no problem teach can't get on his own).

I am left wondering why I even bother to hit spell check in a post that contains no actual meaning. Oh well...here goes nothing...

 

[Arch Enemy]

http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg
http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg
http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg


Is all I can say.

That's my solution right there 60 miles to the Gallon! Beat that!

 

[stsburns]

http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg
http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg
http://auto.sohu.com/piclib/toyota/toyota/prius/big/Toyota_Prius008.jpg


Is all I can say.

That's my solution right there 60 miles to the Gallon! Beat that!

Actully that car would be consided totaled if it ran into a sign, not to mention an SUV were to hit it. By the way do you drive standard/manual shift? NICE SIGNATURE Arch Enemy! That is a cool Sig!

Toyota Prius
Aluminum double overhead cam (DOHC) 16-valve
VVT-i 4-cylinder, 76 hp @ 5000 rpm (57 kW @ 5000 rpm) I'm a motorhead, and 76 horse power isn't much. How can someone beat that, drive another economy car called from the same manufacturer 10 years ago. 1995 Toyota : Paseo COUPE,Priuspic , Paseo is spanish for "Walk". Yet it has more power! The Paseo has A "100-horsepower, 1.5-liter 4-cylinder engine powered 1992-95 models. Starting in 1995, however, output dropped to 93 horsepower but torque went up. Either a 5-speed manual transmission or 4-speed automatic might be installed in a Paseo." Paseo Specs If there were a race against Toyota Prius, and its 10 year old counterpart Toyota Paseo, the Paseo would win hands down! That's beating it with its own brand! :mrgreen:

 

[Alastor]

Zebulon,

I looked at your sources. I started with the one from Stanford, because that's a pretty credible institution.

They write:

"BTW: People may be interested in knowing that the variation in the sun's energy output has far more impact on our climate than the tiny increases of various chemicals. Eg. doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has the effect (on our climate) as increasing the solar irradiance by 0.1% more or less... This is about what ACRIMM has measured for the solar fluctuations.

Okay, so the randomness of the sun's rays are more potent than chemicals. But what impact are the chemicals actually having?

Being hit by a car is almost certainly going to hurt more than being slapped too - that doesn't reduce the pain, danger or harm caused by being slapped.

We also can't control the sun, but can control the chemicals in our environment.

Other than that it didn't really say much about the argument taking place in this thread.

This link from agu.org, seems to want to argue about a historical ice period, rather than our current one. Unless I'm missing something I don't get what this has to do with the modern phenomena of global warming.

Can you point me to something I've overlooked or misunderstood or something? It's entirely possible I did, and it would be cool of you to hook me up.

This one which is also from Agu.org, seems to support that we're manipulating our own global warming. It states:

Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which includes the wavelengths of radiation emitted by atmospheric gases and clouds and by the Earth's land and oceans.

Laboratory experiments with greenhouse gases and spectrally resolved studies of radiation absorption and transmission in the atmosphere indicate that a number of gases present in the atmosphere are capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. The most important of these so-called greenhouse gases is water vapor. Other important natural greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

And it goes on to state...

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons - the greenhouse gases - have increased significantly above preindustrial levels, and the increase is due to anthropogenic activities.

And finally it says....

Because of their infrared absorption, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases exert a global warming influence.

It sounds to me like this organization held a conference to figure out what they could come to a consensus on (since that's the point of the article). And they did! One of the issues they came to consensus on was that we are indeed responsible for global warming, by no small amount, and that the gases we produce in our chemicals is part of the problem.

I don't see how this is an argument against any of the popularly held beliefs about global warming. To the contrary, it seems to support those arguments.

Can you explain this to me?

 

[teacher]

Awww..teach..I'm hurt. My information appears to have been accurate...but no mention? Kelzie was indeed much more specific than I was...

Please note the "That I've seen part". Go back far and you'll see I give you credit. You both seem in the know.

Thank God we solved that bit about what water does. I mean, this is really breaking new ground!

Just working with what I can read here. You didn't say it so I did.So if your so damn smart why didn't you give us it to begin with. Seems to me between Kelzie and me we got the whole thing right. Thanks again Kelzie for the 4c part.
[QUOTE

]

Excellent work everone. I doubt teacher, of the massive brain,

himself even could have come to this conclusion on his own (aww...who am I kidding, there's no problem teach can't get on his own).

Well, if I take time to READ, like anyone else can, then you would be right. Dude, I gave you credit.

I am left wondering why I even bother to hit spell check in a post that contains no actual meaning. Oh well...here goes nothing...

[/QUOTE]

That is some classic smack. Keep it up. Graduate to the basement. If it's sarcasm you need some work. If it's humor you need some help. How about we drop humor or hate for this thread and you explain to me what I was trying to tell you in simple words. let's talk science. I can. You got water semi-right. Lets go brainiac. This topic. Tell you what. You pick a scientific topic, give me about......oh ....5 seconds to prepare... and we will debate......any time....I got your massive brain.....and something else, hanging. Physics, chemistry, Biology, medicine, astronomy, you pick, then dance, come on smart guy, I can find a way around this Internet shi*t, can you. I wont hold my breath.

 

[teacher]

[Okay, so the randomness of the sun's rays are more potent than chemicals.

That'as what I said, in post # 20.

We also can't control the sun, but can control the chemicals in our environment.

#20

This link from agu.org, seems to want to argue about a historical ice period, rather than our current one. Unless I'm missing something I don't get what this has to do with the modern phenomena of global warming

So your saying it's humans fault? Be specific.

Can you point me to something I've overlooked or misunderstood or something? It's entirely possible I did, and it would be cool of you to hook me up.

Sun big. Much heat make. Ungowa.

This one which is also from Agu.org, seems to support that we're manipulating our own global warming. It states:

You haven't read this thread, have you. It's nice to say things, put it in your own word. Better yet, counter my points.....

And it goes on to state...

I'm a little tea pot,

And finally it says....

short and stout.

It

sounds to me like this organization held a conference to figure out what they could come to a consensus on (since that's the point of the article). And they did! One of the issues they came to consensus on was that we are indeed responsible for global warming, by no small amount, and that the gases we produce in our chemicals is part of the problem.

Well, then they would be dumb asses.

I don't see how this is an argument against any of the popularly held beliefs about global warming. To the contrary, it seems to support those arguments.

Can you explain this to me?

Look at my posts, this thread. Oh look, I've got another 9/11 type chew toy. Run while you can.

 

[ncallaway]

That is some classic smack. Keep it up. Graduate to the basement. If it's sarcasm you need some work. If it's humor you need some help. How about we drop humor or hate for this thread and you explain to me what I was trying to tell you in simple words. let's talk science. I can. You got water semi-right. Lets go brainiac. This topic. Tell you what. You pick a scientific topic, give me about......oh ....5 seconds to prepare... and we will debate......any time....I got your massive brain.....and something else, hanging. Physics, chemistry, Biology, medicine, astronomy, you pick, then dance, come on smart guy, I can find a way around this Internet shi*t, can you. I wont hold my breath.

Sorry, teach. Yea, I noticed you gave me credit back there. First of all, the entire thing was light hearted. That's most important.

I figured this was the end of the thread wrap up. I'm not actually hurt.

The bit about breaking new ground was a poor attempt at a joke. To be fair, I posted at 11:21pm and I don't usually stay up that late, 'cause I have a class in the morning. I was tired, so it was indeed a poor attempt at humor. I'll do better next time.

Excellent work everyone. I doubt teacher, of the massive brain, himself even could have come to this conclusion on his own (aww...who am I kidding, there's no problem teach can't get on his own).

I decided to put all that in there because I wanted to throw you a compliment ("there's no problem teach can't get on his own"). Mostly because in the few days I've been on this board, you're one of the people I've grown to respect (note: I'm not saying that because one of your monkeys showed up today and is forcing this entire post at knife point. And if any of you are reading this I don't need help. And I don't need it right now). I like you, so I gave you a compliment. Wrapped in a poorly worded, sarcastic looking sentence. I, again, choose the sleep deficit defense, as when I look at this (as well as the last thing), I can clearly see why you interpreted it as you did.

That last bit about spell-check came in after I moved my mouse to spell check. I realized how useless it is to spell check a post that wasn't contributing to debate, but merely being a jokeish thing.

Anyway, sorry you took it wrong, I can see how you took it wrong. I was up past my bedtime, I suppose.

 

[Zebulon]

Zebulon,

Can you explain this to me?

Read further. :mrgreen: You'll see them. It's in each and every one of those links I gave you.

And I never said that chemicals weren't having an effect. ANYTHING you do will have SOME type of effect. What MAGNITUDE of effect, and the OUTCOME of the effect in a chaotic system... that's anyone's guess, and anyone who can honestly claim to be able to not only compute that, but with an acceptable level of accuracy over time, deserves a Nobel prize.

 

[Alastor]

Teacher,

Okay, so the randomness of the sun's rays are more potent than chemicals.

That'as what I said, in post # 20.

Okay.

We also can't control the sun, but can control the chemicals in our environment.

#20

#okay.

This link from agu.org, seems to want to argue about a historical ice period, rather than our current one. Unless I'm missing something I don't get what this has to do with the modern phenomena of global warming.

So your saying it's humans fault? Be specific.

No, I'm saying that the link to which I referred in that post doesn't pertain to the argument at hand. It's referring to a historical period that has no bearing on our current situation.

Can you point me to something I've overlooked or misunderstood or something? It's entirely possible I did, and it would be cool of you to hook me up.

Sun big. Much heat make. Ungowa.

Very articulate. When you have something that addresses the issue or adds to the argument, let me know.

This one which is also from Agu.org, seems to support that we're manipulating our own global warming. It states:

You haven't read this thread, have you. It's nice to say things, put it in your own word. Better yet, counter my points.....

Yes, I've read this thread. I'm not trying to counter anyone's points. I'm asking Zebulon to substantiate his own and make his arguments more clear.

And it goes on to state...

I'm a little tea pot,

Again, when you have something to add, let us know. In the meantime this kind of behavior is simply rude, childish, and would be better suited to a playground than a discussion among intelligent adults.

It sounds to me like this organization held a conference to figure out what they could come to a consensus on (since that's the point of the article). And they did! One of the issues they came to consensus on was that we are indeed responsible for global warming, by no small amount, and that the gases we produce in our chemicals is part of the problem.

Well, then they would be dumb asses.

Nice argument. How can I possibly not be swayed by this logic and strong support for your cause! Complete with quotes and everything! Shouldn't you be in school about now?

I don't see how this is an argument against any of the popularly held beliefs about global warming. To the contrary, it seems to support those arguments.

Can you explain this to me?

Look at my posts, this thread. Oh look, I've got another 9/11 type chew toy. Run while you can.

You're quite arrogant for posting such asinine retorts. I am not a scholar on the issue of global warming, and simply asked Zebulon to present his argument to me.

Do you ever have anything worth saying, or is this simply how you feed your addiction for attention? I have a seven year-old nephew with the same problem, he'll do anything (including make a total ass of himself) to get attention. I believe he has properly prepared me for discourse with you.




Zebulon

Read further. You'll see them. It's in each and every one of those links I gave you.

K. Can't right now, but I will. I did notice that I missed the final article that you linked to in entirity, so I'll read that one. The others I read, but found nothing compelling or significantly pertinent in. If you feel I've missed something, please do let me know.

And I never said that chemicals weren't having an effect. ANYTHING you do will have SOME type of effect. What MAGNITUDE of effect, and the OUTCOME of the effect in a chaotic system... that's anyone's guess, and anyone who can honestly claim to be able to not only compute that, but with an acceptable level of accuracy over time, deserves a Nobel prize.

Okay, well with this phrasing of your point, I would accept your stance without any discussion needed. I find that to be very believable, and indeed likely. That's not how I took your statements originally, however.

 

[Zebulon]

Zebulon




K. Can't right now, but I will. I did notice that I missed the final article that you linked to in entirity, so I'll read that one. The others I read, but found nothing compelling or significantly pertinent in. If you feel I've missed something, please do let me know.



Okay, well with this phrasing of your point, I would accept your stance without any discussion needed. I find that to be very believable, and indeed likely. That's not how I took your statements originally, however.

I can see that, as I did mention cooling in my post. However, I was simply using that to show that there are good, scientifically trained minds that have completely opposite opinion of what could happen with the rise of global "warming".

I'll go back over my links (as I thought I chose them for their "cooling" aspects) and see what I can find. Also, I'll search for others as well.

In closing, it is my opinion that you are NOTHING like a teapot. Thank you.

 

[teacher]

Sorry, teach. Yea, I noticed you gave me credit back there. First of all, the entire thing was light hearted. That's most important.

I figured this was the end of the thread wrap up. I'm not actually hurt.

The bit about breaking new ground was a poor attempt at a joke. To be fair, I posted at 11:21pm and I don't usually stay up that late, 'cause I have a class in the morning. I was tired, so it was indeed a poor attempt at humor. I'll do better next time.

I decided to put all that in there because I wanted to throw you a compliment ("there's no problem teach can't get on his own"). Mostly because in the few days I've been on this board, you're one of the people I've grown to respect (note: I'm not saying that because one of your monkeys showed up today and is forcing this entire post at knife point. And if any of you are reading this I don't need help. And I don't need it right now). I like you, so I gave you a compliment. Wrapped in a poorly worded, sarcastic looking sentence. I, again, choose the sleep deficit defense, as when I look at this (as well as the last thing), I can clearly see why you interpreted it as you did.

That last bit about spell-check came in after I moved my mouse to spell check. I realized how useless it is to spell check a post that wasn't contributing to debate, but merely being a jokeish thing.

Anyway, sorry you took it wrong, I can see how you took it wrong. I was up past my bedtime, I suppose.

Hey, I submitted a sub par Top ten recently. Sometimes I jump the gun as most everyone hates me here (my master plan is working) and so few have a sense-o-humor, that I assume wrongly. I'm sure if I go back and reread your post I bust a gut. Oh well. It's all good. Now Alastor, he's wound up tight. I don't think he liked my "I'm a little teapot" bit. DEFIANTLY gonna have to pick on him some more.

 

[Alastor]

Hey, I submitted a sub par Top ten recently. Sometimes I jump the gun as most everyone hates me here (my master plan is working) and so few have a sense-o-humor, that I assume wrongly. I'm sure if I go back and reread your post I bust a gut. Oh well. It's all good. Now Alastor, he's wound up tight. I don't think he liked my "I'm a little teapot" bit. DEFIANTLY gonna have to pick on him some more.

I have no problem with you advertising to the world that you're stupid. Whether you're stupid or not, or even if you're just playing, that's really not my concern.

If you want to make general statements to the world that depict you as a fool and the class idiot, feel free to do so.

When you direct it at me, however, expect me to respond accordingly.

Some of us come here to talk seriously about important issues. Some of us come here to meet girls. Some of us come here to play and be stupid. I respect and acknowledge everyone's right to be here. I won't let me serious conversations interfere with your childish banter, and I would merely ask the same in return.

If you want to be a dumbass, by all means go ahead. Just point your antics elsewhere. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.


By the way, it's "definitely" - not "Defiantly."

 

[Pacridge]

And where does the "bad part" come in?

Ok that's just plain funny.

But not too far inland. I got some land east of there. Hummm, ocean front lot?