OT: Apparently Irma's "graphics have been created to make it look like the ocean's having an exorcism"

I was talking about you (and Nancy), moron.

Facts. Something you have no acquaintance with.

Nobody takes krw's ideas seriously, so whatever krw thinks he is talking about he's actually just revealing more of his cognitive deficit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

rote:

:

ote:

10, Taxed and Spent wrote: :

te:

alm Beach days after

ftists in the media tamper

ists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either e nd of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

g with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

d to change the definition

the largest ever in the

o post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic g lobal warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to fi nd examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards fi nding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and do esn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the tr ouble, not that he seems to have done that.

I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Dail y Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent say s one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a we bsite I'm not familiar with.

ed on it. I hear network

ling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggeratin g crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it h as to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

n houses destroyed, then

foot high water mark

ed.

stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more materi al than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explan atory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were d estroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it do esn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

n, then showed an aerial

l that was "destruction".

of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

lear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

ntrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" hou ses in an aerial view.

rfect destruction are.

ter mark after the

ing and a few feet

erstand that is not

cast.

s

n showed an aerial

was "destruction"."

erial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't lik e the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hur ricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

age in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications.

h. Just

s ever actually done.

I don't agree with it.

sults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

it?

"Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

m you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their parent's bas ement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you understand.

Trifle ironic, coming from krw, whose idea of a fact is something he knows. The idea of "supporting evidence" is entirely foreign to him - if he "know s" something, what he "knows" is absolutely right and totally unquestionabl e, and anybody who disagrees with him is automatically lying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

y that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up im ages that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implicatio ns..

itical

is

s "The

news

e done

s of the main-stream media are stuck with reporting pretty much the same fa cts. Squeezing in any spin is difficult, since the words devoted to insert ing the spin take up column inches that would otherwise be used to communic ate more facts.

t

t

ers

Rupert Murdoch's "Sun" newspaper is a long way down the journalistic peckin g order. His "News of the World" was even sleazier, but it was so sleazy th at he ended up having to shut it down.

What makes USA Today a "successful" newspaper - part from the fact that it hasn't actually gone bust (yet) at a time when print newspapers aren't doin g well? It's got a wide circulation, but only because it reaches the parts that other - more serious - newspapers won't bother with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Oh. Unfortunate your statements seem to be describing Trump.

rote:

:

ote:

10, Taxed and Spent wrote: :

te:

alm Beach days after

ftists in the media tamper

ists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either e nd of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

g with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

d to change the definition

the largest ever in the

o post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic g lobal warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to fi nd examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards fi nding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and do esn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the tr ouble, not that he seems to have done that.

I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Dail y Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent say s one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a we bsite I'm not familiar with.

ed on it. I hear network

ling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggeratin g crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it h as to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

n houses destroyed, then

foot high water mark

ed.

stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more materi al than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explan atory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were d estroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it do esn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

n, then showed an aerial

l that was "destruction".

of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

lear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

ntrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" hou ses in an aerial view.

rfect destruction are.

ter mark after the

ing and a few feet

erstand that is not

cast.

s

n showed an aerial

was "destruction"."

erial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't lik e the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hur ricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

age in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications.

h. Just

s ever actually done.

I don't agree with it.

sults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

it?

"Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

m you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their parent's bas ement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you understand.

Calling someone illiterate when they are typing sentences you evidently are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge of what a f act is.

Again, you work hard to prove me right. It's not necessary. It's obvious.

I call people illiterate when they've demonstrated that they're just that. You can't read, so you're illiterate. It really is that easy.

I work hard to annoy you because your responses are some of the most baseless, insulting, and vague on SED.

rote:

:

ote:

+10, Taxed and Spent wrote: :

e:

ote:

4 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

g Palm Beach days after

leftists in the media tamper

eftists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from eithe r end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

ring with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable a nd paranoid.

ided to change the definition

was the largest ever in the

y to post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogeni c global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't h ave stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

? I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The D aily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not familiar with.

alled on it. I hear network

calling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not l ike this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property lo ss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political pa rty is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggera ting crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

d"?

and I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me . For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if i t has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

ston houses destroyed, then

two foot high water mark

royed.

hen stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more mat erial than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the exp lanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house wer e destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

tion, then showed an aerial

all that was "destruction".

ber of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

o clear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may st ill be standing may not be in good shape.

contrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

how his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial view.

mperfect destruction are.

water mark after the

peting and a few feet

understand that is not

oadcast.

was

then showed an aerial

at was "destruction"."

n aerial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the politi cal implications.

idth. Just

e is ever actually done.

if I don't agree with it.

insults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is sim ply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

't it?

he "Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

from you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their parent's basement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you understand.

are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge of what a fact is.

i(l)?lid?r?t/ adjective

1. unable to read or write.

I can read, I can write. There might be better words to use that aren't so obviously off-base, but I doubt you could figure those out. So unless you w ant to also invent a new definition for it, I'd say you're wrong:

wrong

adjective

1. not correct or true.

You wouldn't know hard work if it bit you in your snowlake ass. I can't help it if you're illiterate but knock yourself out.

Or comprehend what's read.

Wrong. You can't comprehend what was written.

rote:

:

ote:

10, Taxed and Spent wrote: : +10, Taxed and Spent wrote:

te:

ote:

rote:

0:04 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

te:

ting Palm Beach days after

ews

aid leftists in the media tamper

st.

"leftists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from ei ther end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them .

mpering with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laughabl e and paranoid.

decided to change the definition

ma was the largest ever in the

appy to post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropog enic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towa rds finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn' t have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

ts"? I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, Th e Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independe nt says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science , a website I'm not familiar with.

g called on it. I hear network

ow calling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's no t like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exagg erating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

oyed"?

ch and I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not find ing it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed i f it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

Houston houses destroyed, then

a two foot high water mark

estroyed.

y when stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed ho use

ruction, then showed an aerial

not all that was "destruction".

number of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

r to clear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

the contrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repairabl e?

in how his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroye d" houses in an aerial view.

f imperfect destruction are.

oot water mark after the

carpeting and a few feet

I understand that is not

h.

broadcast.

odd was

n, then showed an aerial

that was "destruction"."

m an aerial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don 't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly inten se hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

ne damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage ten ds to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the pol itical implications.

ndwidth. Just

ttle is ever actually done.

en if I don't agree with it.

ted insults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

isn't it?

s the "Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

ken

ts from you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their parent 's basement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you understan d.

ly are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge of wh at a fact is.

He comprehends that krw wants to insult him, and doesn't gave the language skills to do it well.

so obviously off-base, but I doubt you could figure those out. So unless yo u want to also invent a new definition for it, I'd say you're wrong:

Ironic. Krw clearly hasn't comprehended what has been written, including th e fact that he (krw) has been shown to be utterly wrong. No surprise there.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 8:26:53 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrot e:

te:

te:

10, snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote:

nt

:

te:

rote:

12 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote: 34:41 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:

rote:

uating Palm Beach days after

news

said leftists in the media tamper

past.

ch "leftists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with th em.

tampering with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laugha ble and paranoid.

y decided to change the definition

Irma was the largest ever in the

/

happy to post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthrop ogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statisti cs to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (accordin g to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased to wards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man , and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which would n't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone t o the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

ists"? I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Indepen dent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Scien ce, a website I'm not familiar with.

ing called on it. I hear network

how calling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great proper ty loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either politic al party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exa ggerating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importanc e.

troyed"?

arch and I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not fi nding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

e Houston houses destroyed, then

ad a two foot high water mark

destroyed.

acy when stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record mor e material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out th e explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those hous e were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, b ut it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

struction, then showed an aerial

t not all that was "destruction".

e number of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

per to clear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What m ay still be standing may not be in good shape.

.

"the contrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repaira ble?

lain how his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destro yed" houses in an aerial view.

of imperfect destruction are.

foot water mark after the

t carpeting and a few feet

p, I understand that is not

aph.

ws broadcast.

s odd was

ion, then showed an aerial

ll that was "destruction"."

rom an aerial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you d on't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly int ense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

.

cane damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage t ends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the p olitical implications.

bandwidth. Just

little is ever actually done.

even if I don't agree with it.

iated insults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not i s simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

e.

, isn't it?

o's the "Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

poken

ults from you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their pare nt's basement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you underst and.

ntly are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge of what a fact is.

.

e skills to do it well.

t so obviously off-base, but I doubt you could figure those out. So unless you want to also invent a new definition for it, I'd say you're wrong:

the fact that he (krw) has been shown to be utterly wrong. No surprise ther e.

I've learned ignoring krw in most cases really is best. It's one thing to d isagree with someone who can make a coherent argument, but krw is only good at baseless, unsubstantiated insults. He thinks calling someone "clueless" , "illiterate", and making vague insulting claims about liberals makes him look intelligent.

I picture him as this reclusive 20 or 30-something dork. I really can't pic ture him as a mature adult.

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:52:12 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wro te:

ote:

rote:

e:

rote:

pent

te:

rote:

51 PM UTC+10, Taxed and Spent wrote: 1:12 PM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote: 1:34:41 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:

wrote:

acuating Palm Beach days after

ke news

He said leftists in the media tamper

e past.

hich "leftists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone fro m either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

s tampering with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is laug hable and paranoid.

ody decided to change the definition

t Irma was the largest ever in the

ed/

is happy to post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthr opogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statis tics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (accord ing to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front m an, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wou ldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

ftists"? I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest , The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Indep endent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL Sci ence, a website I'm not familiar with.

being called on it. I hear network

ee how calling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It' s not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great prop erty loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either polit ical party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. E xaggerating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importa nce.

estroyed"?

search and I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjectiv e to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroy ed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

the Houston houses destroyed, then

had a two foot high water mark

OT destroyed.

iracy when stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record m ore material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those ho use were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-trashe d house

destruction, then showed an aerial

but not all that was "destruction".

the number of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

eaper to clear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

uh.

ne "the contrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily repai rable?

xplain how his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "dest royed" houses in an aerial view.

ns of imperfect destruction are.

wo foot water mark after the

out carpeting and a few feet

up, I understand that is not

H!

graph.

news broadcast.

as odd was

ction, then showed an aerial

all that was "destruction"."

from an aerial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly i ntense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

ly.

ricane damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The damage tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what the political implications.

f bandwidth. Just

y little is ever actually done.

g even if I don't agree with it.

ntiated insults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are not is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

are.

ts, isn't it?

who's the "Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

spoken

nsults from you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their pa rent's basement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you under stand.

dently are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge o f what a fact is.

st

sy.

age skills to do it well.

n't so obviously off-base, but I doubt you could figure those out. So unles s you want to also invent a new definition for it, I'd say you're wrong:

g the fact that he (krw) has been shown to be utterly wrong. No surprise th ere.

disagree with someone who can make a coherent argument, but krw is only go od at baseless, unsubstantiated insults. He thinks calling someone "clueles s", "illiterate", and making vague insulting claims about liberals makes hi m look intelligent.

icture him as a mature adult.

Wrong. He's over 65 - he has boasted about still being in work after being compulsorily retired from his first job. Senile adult might be closer to th e mark. And he does seem to be married.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 12:25:48 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wro te:

rote:

:

ote:

nt

:

Spent

rote:

00 AM UTC+10, Taxed and Spent wrote: 5:51 PM UTC+10, Taxed and Spent wrote:

om wrote:

evacuating Palm Beach days after

fake news

He said leftists in the media tamper

the past.

which "leftists" tampered with images? And I'm not talking about anyone f rom either end of the politically extreme; I think most do not identify wit h them.

is tampering with satellite or radar images for some ulterior motive is la ughable and paranoid.

ebody decided to change the definition

hat Irma was the largest ever in the

rded/

d is happy to post anything that suggests that the current orthodoxy on ant hropogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the stat istics to find examples that don't tie up with current news reporting (acco rding to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biase d towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which w ouldn't have stopped him learning enough to have useful opinions if he'd go ne to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

leftists"? I did a quick search and the LA Times says it's the 2nd stronge st, The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Ind ependent says one of the strongest. The link you reference refers to IFL S cience, a website I'm not familiar with.

r being called on it. I hear network

r.

see how calling Irma the biggest Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. I t's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great pr operty loss and some loss of life regardless. And it's not like either pol itical party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political impor tance.

"destroyed"?

t search and I'm not finding it in the article (minus the comments), and no t finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subject ive to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destr oyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

t the Houston houses destroyed, then

at had a two foot high water mark

NOT destroyed.

spiracy when stupidity is an adequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take ou t the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these houses were merely damaged. Explanation is vita l, but it doesn't hold the viewer's attention like the image of a well-tras hed house

% destruction, then showed an aerial

, but not all that was "destruction".

d the number of house that looked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

cheaper to clear off the residue down to the foundations and start over. Wh at may still be standing may not be in good shape.

duh.

gine "the contrary" to be? A house may look trashed and still be easily rep airable?

explain how his eagle eye can distinguish between "damaged" houses and "de stroyed" houses in an aerial view.

igns of imperfect destruction are.

two foot water mark after the

g out carpeting and a few feet

it up, I understand that is not

DUH!

tograph.

a news broadcast.

me as odd was

ruction, then showed an aerial

ot all that was "destruction"."

at from an aerial view you saw on a news broadcast. I can appreciate that y ou don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do sensational amounts of damage.

tely.

urricane damage in a way that suits a particular political agenda. The dama ge tends to throw up images that every reporter will grab, no matter what t he political implications.

of bandwidth. Just

tly little is ever actually done.

ing even if I don't agree with it.

tantiated insults. Calling someone illiterate when it's obvious they are n ot is simply a way for you to cope with a lack of a coherent response.

s are.

acts, isn't it?

r who's the "Clueless. Illiterate." one here!

th spoken

insults from you; the type a virgin loser would be firing off from their parent's basement. Unfortunately this seems to be the only language you und erstand.

vidently are able to read and respond to illustrates your lacking knowledge of what a fact is.

just

easy.

guage skills to do it well.

ren't so obviously off-base, but I doubt you could figure those out. So unl ess you want to also invent a new definition for it, I'd say you're wrong:

ing the fact that he (krw) has been shown to be utterly wrong. No surprise there.

to disagree with someone who can make a coherent argument, but krw is only good at baseless, unsubstantiated insults. He thinks calling someone "cluel ess", "illiterate", and making vague insulting claims about liberals makes him look intelligent.

picture him as a mature adult.

g compulsorily retired from his first job. Senile adult might be closer to the mark. And he does seem to be married.

Damn. Someone like that is either bipolar or simply a difficult to get alon g with person in general.