Merger = Global Warming

[Bhairava]

anyway this is the kali-yuga and the world is going to end soon

[Smellybuttface]

If you're trying to say surface tension makes oceans stick to a ball on one perfect elevation thats fine but it doesn't change the fact that oceans are flat so its null and void

How do you explain airplanes having demonstrably shorter flight times by taking advantage of the curvature of the Earth? Those flight times would be impossible on a flat plane.

[solleks]

Uh oh, what are you implying??

[Smellybuttface]

science is extremely gay, nerds are the proof of that

Funny that the guy that posted this: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348288

could in any way project the term “nerd.”

[Bhairava]

Funny that the guy that posted this: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348288

could in any way project the term “nerd.”

sorry science is gay and stupid, my condolences to you for believing in a bunch of nerd garbage.

[solleks]

How do you explain airplanes having demonstrably shorter flight times by taking advantage of the curvature of the Earth? Those flight times would be impossible on a flat plane.

Just to clarify are you saying you think the "spin of the earth" affects flight times?

[Wonkie]

How do you explain airplanes having demonstrably shorter flight times by taking advantage of the curvature of the Earth? Those flight times would be impossible on a flat plane.

The Coriolis effect

[Smellybuttface]

sorry science is gay and stupid, my condolences to you for believing in a bunch of nerd garbage.

Yes, we were the original players. The first. I didn't do everything, but I did quite a bit. Friend of mine was the first to assemble the staff of the wheel. Friend of mine was the first to loot a weight reducing bag in high hold pass. Friend of mine was the first to get married in the game. Rival guild was the first to slay Lady Voxx. The first player to be pvp'ed was down the street from me. First person to kill the POD was in my guild. First person to make a guild I knew. First person to find the bone bladed claymore..

Etc.

We were original EQ, you are the guys wishing you were us.

Sorry)

[Bhairava]

Smellybuttface: jealous of multiple everquest firsts + lame and possibly homosexual nerd (yikes)

[Bhairava]

I guess his name is appropriate tho

[Bhairava]

tripple psot

[Hoppkins_Wytchfinder]

Just ignore him. I stupidly fell for his trolling. The upside is it makes all of his future arguments and discussions (in my eyes) without credibility which saves me some typing.

Like the boy who cried wolf.

Ignore and move on like you do with people in the street yelling at inanimate objects.

Perhaps one day he will want a serious discussion and be annoyed when no one takes him seriously (but i doubt it).

Happy weekend

[solleks]

The coriolis effect is alot like dark matter. Its a bunch of math to make the bull shit solar model work in 3d. Has no meaning in our lives and it cant be proven.

[Smellybuttface]

Just to clarify are you saying you think the "spin of the earth" affects flight times?

I was referring to the curvature, not the rotation. However...

The Coriolis effect

True, the Coriolis effect is also demonstrative of how the curvature affects the patterns of flights and air currents. Why? Because the Earth moves at different speeds dependent on what latitude you’re at (Earth moves more slowly at the higher and lower latitudes then it would at the equator).

I don’t know how flat earthers try and explain the very clear effect this has on weather patterns, but then again I don’t know how they explain away satellite images or seeing other planets through telescopes either, other than “Gummint Conspircy!”

[solleks]

I was referring to the curvature, not the rotation. However...

How does the curvature affect flight time

True, the Coriolis effect is also demonstrative of how the curvature affects the patterns of flights and air currents. Why? Because the Earth moves at different speeds dependent on what latitude you’re at (Earth moves more slowly at the higher and lower latitudes then it would at the equator).

I don’t know how flat earthers try and explain the very clear effect this has on weather patterns, but then again I don’t know how they explain away satellite images or seeing other planets through telescopes either, other than “Gummint Conspircy!”

Circumstantial evidence of weather patterns? How about a real experiment that proves it?

[solleks]

In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force[1] that acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise (or counterclockwise) rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflection of an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect. Though recognized previously by others, the mathematical expression for the Coriolis force appeared in an 1835 paper by French scientist Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, in connection with the theory of water wheels. Early in the 20th century, the term Coriolis force began to be used in connection with meteorology.

Newton's laws of motion describe the motion of an object in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference. When Newton's laws are transformed to a rotating frame of reference, the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations appear. When applied to massive objects, the respective forces are proportional to the masses of them. The Coriolis force is proportional to the rotation rate and the centrifugal force is proportional to the square of the rotation rate. The Coriolis force acts in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis and to the velocity of the body in the rotating frame and is proportional to the object's speed in the rotating frame (more precisely, to the component of its velocity that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation). The centrifugal force acts outwards in the radial direction and is proportional to the distance of the body from the axis of the rotating frame. These additional forces are termed inertial forces, fictitious forces or pseudo forces.[2] They "allow" the application of Newton's laws to a rotating system. They are correction factors that do not exist in a non-accelerating or inertial reference frame.[3

[solleks]

Newtons laws had to apply to the solar system Einstein made it happen, show me an experiment proveling it

[Wonkie]

I was referring to the curvature, not the rotation. However...



True, the Coriolis effect is also demonstrative of how the curvature affects the patterns of flights and air currents. Why? Because the Earth moves at different speeds dependent on what latitude you’re at (Earth moves more slowly at the higher and lower latitudes then it would at the equator).

I don’t know how flat earthers try and explain the very clear effect this has on weather patterns, but then again I don’t know how they explain away satellite images or seeing other planets through telescopes either, other than “Gummint Conspircy!”

You can reconcile a rotating flanet when you notice the sun exiting through the door of night. this is canon

[Smellybuttface]

Smellybuttface: jealous of multiple everquest firsts...


First, I played EQ on day 1. I was the first Wizard to hit level 50 on my server, Fennin Ro, and I am the one who lost to Drakky in the arena with my wizard, and then pvp'ed him for a win with my Enchanter the next day. I was also present for the famous "Leroy Jenkins" event, I was in the raid.



The defense rests.

[Bhairava]

he who laffs last laffs best

[Bhairava]

u still gay nerd

[Horza]

In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force[1] that acts on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise (or counterclockwise) rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflection of an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect. Though recognized previously by others, the mathematical expression for the Coriolis force appeared in an 1835 paper by French scientist Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, in connection with the theory of water wheels. Early in the 20th century, the term Coriolis force began to be used in connection with meteorology.

Newton's laws of motion describe the motion of an object in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference. When Newton's laws are transformed to a rotating frame of reference, the Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations appear. When applied to massive objects, the respective forces are proportional to the masses of them. The Coriolis force is proportional to the rotation rate and the centrifugal force is proportional to the square of the rotation rate. The Coriolis force acts in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis and to the velocity of the body in the rotating frame and is proportional to the object's speed in the rotating frame (more precisely, to the component of its velocity that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation). The centrifugal force acts outwards in the radial direction and is proportional to the distance of the body from the axis of the rotating frame. These additional forces are termed inertial forces, fictitious forces or pseudo forces.[2] They "allow" the application of Newton's laws to a rotating system. They are correction factors that do not exist in a non-accelerating or inertial reference frame.[3

Uh oh, it looks like sollek has discovered Wikipedia.

[solleks]

Just showing that even if i use the propaganda you guys devour it still says right in it that's it's bull shit

[Smellybuttface]

Just showing that even if i use the propaganda you guys devour it still says right in it that's it's bull shit

LOL

You don’t even understand what it is you copy/pasted. “Fictitious force” in science doesn’t mean that the force is ‘fake,’ it refers to forces that arise when a frame of reference is accelerating. Just as a “scientific theory” isn’t a “theory” in the way meaning a hunch or an idea, but rather it’s used as a way to interpret facts.

Gravity is also a “fictitious force.” I won’t even ask if you believe in gravity or not, I actually don’t want to know the answer. But I actually laughed out loud when you copy pasta’d Wikipedia thinking it bolstered your point, and arbitrarily bolded words that had no correlation whatsoever to what it was you were trying to prove.

[Wonkie]

Just showing that even if i use the propaganda you guys devour it still says right in it that's it's bull shit

is the China quarantine thing real or just the busses/trains aren't running?

[solleks]

LOL

You don’t even understand what it is you copy/pasted. “Fictitious force” in science doesn’t mean that the force is ‘fake,’ it refers to forces that arise when a frame of reference is accelerating. Just as a “scientific theory” isn’t a “theory” in the way meaning a hunch or an idea, but rather it’s used as a way to interpret facts.

Gravity is also a “fictitious force.” I won’t even ask if you believe in gravity or not, I actually don’t want to know the answer. But I actually laughed out loud when you copy pasta’d Wikipedia thinking it bolstered your point, and arbitrarily bolded words that had no correlation whatsoever to what it was you were trying to prove.

Yes. Yes it is

[solleks]

is the China quarantine thing real or just the busses/trains aren't running?

If it's on tv it's a mind fuck. I don't watch tv so i dont know what you're referencing. Does it make you afraid? Does it makes you fret? That's the goal

[Canelek]

You may be presenting false information as trolling to prove a perceived point, but for every bullshit conspiracy theory pasted, there's always a handful of eager followers to take that same bullshit and forward it on, chain-letter style, as @fact NVARCHAR(MAX).

It is a great way to gain followers who may be new to the internet, or simply new to information. Sprinkle in some white nationalism and POW!

This is how we currently have who we have in the white house.

[Jubal]

Imagine living life with all the understanding of an intellectually disabled toddler. How blissful is your existence solleks?

[solleks]

Nerds cast *social shame social shame*
Your spell fizzles

[solleks]

You may be presenting false information as trolling to prove a perceived point, but for every bullshit conspiracy theory pasted, there's always a handful of eager followers to take that same bullshit and forward it on, chain-letter style, as @fact NVARCHAR(MAX).

It is a great way to gain followers who may be new to the internet, or simply new to information. Sprinkle in some white nationalism and POW!

This is how we currently have who we have in the white house.

So basically what I'm saying is very convincing? Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

[solleks]

Imagine living life with all the understanding of an intellectually disabled toddler. How blissful is your existence solleks?

Im literally loving life. Im extremely blessed by God

[Canelek]

Anything can be convincing if the reader wants to believe it.

For example:

Around 2005 it was a popular spam tactic to create fake quotes/memes of famously liberal celebrities like George Carlin and pass them off as right wing rallying points. It's nothing new at all, and the whole point of spam is that a certain percentage of people who actually get these emails will pass it on to their contacts and so on.

Hardly a conspiracy theory. It is simple mass marketing.

[solleks]

Just cause you don't like what i say doesn't mean it's spam

[solleks]

Anything can be convincing if the reader wants to believe it.

For example:

Around 2005 it was a popular spam tactic to create fake quotes/memes of famously liberal celebrities like George Carlin and pass them off as right wing rallying points. It's nothing new at all, and the whole point of spam is that a certain percentage of people who actually get these emails will pass it on to their contacts and so on.

Hardly a conspiracy theory. It is simple mass marketing.
Maybe you could file it under building new consensus. Or maybe you're just upset.

[Canelek]

Certainly you could. New consensus, "alternative-fact", decrying global, established news outlets as "fake news"...whichever, or all of the above are quite effective.

We are living in a very special time of toilet tweet policy and empowered 4chan-folk.

[solleks]

Living on a space ball is an alternative fact imo

[TomisFeline]

I read the Forbes article very closely and it's completely insubstantial. As I mention elsewhere below, Epstein does not debunk the "97%" claim; he attempts to debunk one of the studies (Cook). He does not address any of the other studies. With that said, I'll dig into his attempted debunking of the Cook study.

From the start, he misrepresents Cook's article. Epstein writes, 'Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.'

This is not accurate. Cook surveyed almost 12,000 papers. He did not find that 97% of them endorsed AGW. He found that "among abstracts expressing a position on AGW" 97% of them endorsed AGW. This is, ultimately, not that big of a deal, but it already reveals Epstein as a lackluster scholar and continues to undermine his credibility, which is already fairly low considering his vested financial interests and lack of scientific training.

As for, as you say, the scientists "who say they were listed amongst the 97%who think humans aren't causing significant global warming when in fact they do not believe it: Epstein says in his article that "numerous" scientists "protested." The number of scientists who "protest" was 7. 7 out of almost 12,000. I wonder why Epstein chose to write "numerous" rather than "7"? While technically correct, "numerous" has a bit of dramatic flair that "7" doesn't quite capture.

Now let's dig more deeply into some of these scientists. It is not entirely true, as you suggest, that "they do not believe [AGW]." The first scientist, Scafetta, writes: "Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most." This is not exactly a slam-dunk debunking of AGW.

Richard Tol, one of the seven, and also one of the people quoted by Epstein, is a firm believer in AGW. He protested about some of his article's classification, and took some umbrage at the project in general, but he is certainly not a climate change denier. In his own words, "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.

I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.

...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral."

So Tol is actually complaining that some of his papers were excluded AND that one of them was categorized too weakly! ("I would rate 3 as strong endorsement with quantification...of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement.") Of the papers that weren't included, "one strongly endorses AGW." He also argues that the "solar hypothesis" advocated by the aforementioned Scafetta among others "is a load of bull." Not exactly someone I would describe as not believing in AGW, despite your earlier claim.

Another among the 7 is Willie Soon who, two years later (this article was published in 2013) would be exposed for taking over a million dollars in funding from various interest groups. Oops!

So you've got 7 protesting scientists (remember: "numerous") out of literally thousands, and among those seven, one believes in AGW, just a smaller percentage of culpability, maybe closer to 40-50%, one who very strongly believes in AGW and in fact thinks the solar theory is "bullshit" and one who at the time of this "protest" is getting paid by the powers at be.

This is pretty weak stuff.

The fact that you keep saying the "97% claims" shows you're either being disingenuous, or you misunderstand the research. There isn't a single claim about 97%. The studies I linked to all used different methodologies to determine the scientific consensus. One study came up with a 91% consensus, one came up with a 100% consensus, one came up with 93% consensus and four came up with either 97% or 97-98%. These are all different studies. Even if I found your Forbes article compelling, which I don't (and yes, I read it all, along with your other link), it does not engage with the full breadth of the research on this.



It is related to global warming, but the link opens to a page to Letters to the Editor. To have full access to the magazine (Science), you either need to be a subscriber or (as is my case) get access through an academic library.



Not only is the Anderegg not "directly" refuted in your links, it isn't mentioned in either article at all. The Forbes article only mentions the Cooks study. It doesn't engage with any of the other studies, including this one.



This is wrong on many levels. Scientists are not paid to write lots of studies, or at least not by journals. In fact, many scientific journals require you to pay them to submit your articles, because, not surprisingly, these are fairly niche journals read primarily by scientists--they are not, despite what you seem to think, money makers. Scientists are paid, usually, by universities, though their research is often aided by grants. Then there are of course scientists employed by private companies, such as the scientists of Exxon who did extensive research in the 70s on global warming and wrote about it in internal memos, as has been mentioned before in this thread.

Of course in a very literal sense you are right that what is popular is not necessarily true. But it's kind of a funny post-hoc way to try and dismiss a preponderance of scientific evidence. This is like a murder defense saying "well, simply because there are 100 eye-witnesses doesn't mean my client is guilty." Of course it's literally true, but as a counter-argument it's pretty thin.

The method you're trying to use to dismiss this preponderance of evidence--that scientists are paid to write these articles (again, a bit of a nebulous claim)--also begins to break down when you consider the many different sources of funding for scientists in different fields, in both private firms and public agencies, from different governments, etc.

It's also odd to me that you dismiss the opinion of scientists because (so you say) they're paid to write these articles but you do not dismiss the opinion of Epstein, who was definitely paid for the Forbes article and, more importantly, is paid by his for-profit think tank. Why is it that the scientists' opinions are invalidated by the presence of money, but Epstein's is not?



Indeed, they might all disagree with the consensus, though that is pretty unlikely. If you look at the methodology of the study, they emailed over 7000 people and about 1850 responded. That's a pretty solid sample size. Even if you if think that's not true, and you think that 24% is too small to be meaningful (though most polling actually relies in a smaller percentage of responses), one way we could corroborate those numbers is with other studies using different methodologies. Which, fortunately, we have! I linked many of them to you. Surprise, surprise, their results line up.

As for the "they never even say what % of what 1/4 agrees," I'm a little baffled by this comment. Of course they do. That's the entire point of the study. It's right there in "Results":

"Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the nonpublishing climate scientists and nonpublishing meteorologists/ atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively."

You must have only read the Abstract.




Interesting (and telling) here that you don't quote the very next lines: "Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%)." To use your own words, "very suspicious." You obviously opened the study and began to read it, and yet you chose to exclude this information. Why? I'd like to be generous, but it's difficult to interpret this as anything but intellectual dishonesty.

How much modifying do you suggest due to this perceived political and social pressure? 5%? 10%? 64%? This methodology seems very scientific and rigorous and not self-interestingly convenient at all.



Debunked where? So far you've posted one article from Forbes written by the owner of a for-profit fossil fuels think tank who attempts to debunk one article, the Cook, and does not mention any of the others. Even if I granted you the Cook, which I don't, but even if I did, you still have not debunked any of the others.



The Carlton study was published in September 2015. The Forbes article by Epstein was published January 2015. Maybe I should be listening to this Epstein fellow about scientific matters, considering he's evidently discovered time travel!

omg u kild him

[Canelek]

Living on a space ball is an alternative fact imo

That's the spirit! Now just mold the narrative clay around that framework and go to town! Throw in a bit about border security and how unfair everything is to white men, put a wispy wig on a broiled banana slug and you basically have the Trump presidency.

[Smellybuttface]

That's the spirit! Now just mold the narrative clay around that framework and go to town! Throw in a bit about border security and how unfair everything is to white men, put a wispy wig on a broiled banana slug and you basically have the Trump presidency.

Though ironically even Trump believes in space, ergo his “Space Force/Farce.”

So without Trump, Solleks, what candidate is left who can accurately reflect your viewpoints?

[TomisFeline]

Im literally loving life. Im extremely blessed by God

this guy is pro
slowly leaked this stuff at just the right rate to drag this thread out to this many pages. incredible

I bet he goes another 10 pages
most successful forum troll of 2020.

let's see if he beats chests most successful troll long con of building a whole guild to then crash and burn it and leave for live, which achieved over 1000 pages.

[solleks]

None obviously

[solleks]

Didn't know we talking about politics. That's not allowed. This is a climate thread

[Horza]

So basically what I'm saying is very convincing? Who's the conspiracy theorist now?

https://i.imgur.com/0G1PBHd.gif

[solleks]

Even if you were that actual young lady cringing directly at me i wouldn't care since I'm such a smart and good looking guy.

[Polycaster]

Lol I'm so happy people like this guy exist because if it wasn't for stupid people we'd all have the same amount of shit

It's even funnier when you realize it's a smart guy pretending to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart.

[Tzug]

It's even funnier when you realize it's a smart guy pretending to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart.

*crickets*

[Smellybuttface]

It's even funnier when you realize it's a smart guy pretending to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart.

We'll "pretend" you know what's going on...

[Horza]

As we all know there's nothing smarter than pretending to be an idiot, especially a good looking one.

[Smellybuttface]

As we all know there's nothing smarter than pretending to be an idiot, especially a good looking one.

Lol

[Asteria]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348582

[Phillosopher27]

I quit playing on the 99 after the merger to better focus on what I can do to help save teh earfs....withs all this extra time on my hands, I bought a pluviometer, a barometer, and powersock The Weather Channel/Bill Nye for any immediate updates. I record all the facts. I can't wait to find out if the earfs is changing....unlike this game, or the RnF threads.

[solleks]

Heard about record lows in Florida on the radio. I know 95% of you are from Florida any verification? Still global warming? Thought you were supposed to be drowned already.

[Horza]

How can the climate change if it still snows in parts of the world? Checkmate, liberals.

[solleks]

At some point itll happen amirite

[solleks]

Hang on to ur pearls

[Nirgon]

https://www.kpax.com/news/local-news/flathead-county/glacier-national-park-to-remove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs


GLACIER NATIONAL PARK — Glacier National Park is removing signs that state all glaciers will be melted by 2020. Park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen explained that since the early 2000s scientists have reflected and analyzed data stating glaciers would recede by 2020.


Can you believe this guy? lol

[Horza]

Checkmate, liberals. :cool::cool::cool:

[solleks]

https://www.kpax.com/news/local-news/flathead-county/glacier-national-park-to-remove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs



Can you believe this guy? lol

I'm actually shocked they covered that at all

[solleks]

As a kid i has to sit and listen to these weak government employee attempt to instill fear into children. Fuckin disgusting.

[Canelek]

This is where my strong background in Christian Science can kick in at any moment. Granted, there are no geology, climatology, meteorology, physics, mathematics, biology, chemistry or ethics departments.

See you guys at Wal Mart prascuckimagine!

[Jimjam]

I can’t believe you liberals believe glaciers are real.

Wake up sheopul.

[Teppler]

https://www.kpax.com/news/local-news/flathead-county/glacier-national-park-to-remove-all-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020-signs



Can you believe this guy? lol

But apparently scientists never said this sort of thing was going to happen. That's what I was told in this topic. Even though we all vividly remember the fear mongering.

"She told MTN News that the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted. Because of this, the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020."

:D

[Nirgon]

take the glacier sign down ya retards

[Wonkie]

quarantine (https://www.instagram.com/p/B7pjQ84FUFc/)

[Horza]

lol wonkie thinks the Chinese virus is real they just want sell ads on the Clinton News Network

[Smellybuttface]

But apparently scientists never said this sort of thing was going to happen. That's what I was told in this topic. Even though we all vividly remember the fear mongering.."



You were never told that.

[Wonkie]

lol wonkie thinks the Chinese virus is real they just want sell ads on the Clinton News Network

You've misread my tone, morlock.

[Horza]

Sorry, I'm still a little shook that Teppler believes the globalist propaganda about glaciers existing.

[Phaezed-Reality]

Sorry, I'm still a little shook that Teppler believes the globalist propaganda about glaciers existing.

birds are not real.

[Bhairava]

I have requested that the UCS, or
Union of Concerned Scientists, act
to evaluate Nature's Harmonic Time
Cube Principle of Creation - for the
welfare of children, nature and the
future of all humanity. The dumb,
brilliant and boring bastards have ignored
their obligation to their humanity
fellowship to research Time Cube,
and deserve to be spit upon publicly.
It is their moral duty to test Time
Cube, and a curse of boring if they ignore
the greatest discovery of humanity.

I have offered $10,000.00 to the boring
bastards if they disprove Time Cube.
They can't disprove it, so they hide
like yellow-belly bastards they are.

[solleks]

Sorry u didn't get the weather u needed for your scam yet

[Canelek]

Birbs, please

[Horza]

Sorry u didn't get the weather u needed for your scam yet

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

[TomisFeline]

Corona virus is just next iteration of global warming conspiracy. more global catastrophes to keep the sheeple distracted.