Colons are used preceding a list of clauses … if just one clause follows then the semi-colon is to be used.
At what point did discussing punctuation with me seem like a good idea?
I’m actually finding this educational and entertaining. Probably because I can’t punctuate or spell for shit. Hell, if it wasn’t for the spell checker I would sound like some goddamn third world hick for whom English is a third language.
See? Is english capitalized or not? The fucking spell check says it is, but what the fuck does it know? Of course does it even matter? As long as you know the difference between a Galerkin approximation and your Generalized absorption coefficient, or at least can use them in a sentence, does it fucking matter?
Once you start talking like a goddamn scientist people usually tend to either lose interest or start a slap fight, to see who has the biggest science penis.
Who needs that shit? Nobody, that’s who.
At the risk of saying “you started it,” I’m not the one who put himself forward as having teh mad English skillz. That was you, Spanky.
As a reminder, you told someone he used a run-on sentence.
You were incorrect, and in being incorrect you used a run-on sentence. That’s just really fucking funny.
Ok, that made me laugh.
Right? What gave it away? Was it that I explicitly said I wasn’t interested in discussing climate, or the fact that I haven’t done so?
The word “English” is derived from the proper noun “England”, so since we always capitalize England, we would always capitalize English. Another example is the SI unit for energy flow, the Watt. It is always capitalized because it is named after an individual who’s name was Watt, James Watt.
andros, if you claim to be a professor and publish regularly, then I would expect better than single sentence posts over the past 10 months from you. I, on the other hand, have never claimed to be a professor nor have I published anything more than a few chess games. So, if you’re done with this nonsense, I certainly am.
Would you like to add your opinion to the statements I made about the Ribsey research?
Good for you. So I guess you admit that you didn’t have anyone at all in mind when you referred to vague and ever-changing claims?
The fact that you seem unable to advance a coherent argument for any position.
No shit.
If you thought I was talking about you, I refer you to my earlier question about being defensive.
Unwilling.
I asked you specifically “whose claims” so I tried to avoid making any assumptions. Why did you think I assumed you were talking about me?
Looks like you are the one who is being defensive.
Lol, since you are an admitted liar, I hope you will excuse me if I am skeptical. But keep telling yourself that if it helps your feelz.
I think it’s subterraneous who is the renowned professor. Septimus is the brilliant inventor (inventor of bullshit).
OKAY, FINE.! I ALREADY SAID YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!! YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SO HORRIBLE!!
<runs home crying>
(I’m not sure of the protocol here; was that the right response?)
Oh, no, I am demonstrably unwilling to discuss climate. You can search my posts.
I might be incapable as well. Wouldn’t shock me much. But being unwilling doesn’t automatically mean I’m incapable.
But if you need to win to feel good, I already conceded. You’re right. About everything.
.
Of course not . . . never said otherwise. But it smacks of rationalization, especially coming from an admitted liar like you.
Thank you.
Yanno, this is where I could take a page from your book, and ask you for a citation that I am “an admitted liar,” then JAQ it to death.
But it wouldn’t make any difference, because you’re right, completely and always.
If you have a nice headshot, I’d like permission to put it in my locker, sir.
No, thank you.
And I would have been happy to provide quotes and links, liar.
No, you’re not. You’re responding to an article I shared earlier, and it does not refer to studies from 1880 onward.
You skipped the next three sentences of the abstract. You also skipped Risbey’s points from the article. And you missed the other papers mentioned earlier.
You took one sentence from the abstract out of context and did not even bother to refer to the rest of the abstract.
Notice, too, that you are now shifting your argument. First, you argued that the papers make “ridiculous” claims. Now, you’re claiming that they were interpreted incorrectly. So far, you have failed to prove both arguments.
The problem isn’t lack of scientific proof but your inability to prove your arguments.
This make no sense at all. You need evidence and yet recommend that we act given the assumption that we already have such evidence.
Meanwhile, you still need to provide evidence to prove your claims that the papers aren’t peer-reviewed, etc. Also, there’s a seventh paper mentioned here:
“Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles”
Finally, the sentence you referred to in an earlier message is not a run-on sentence because it has an independent and dependent clause. A run-on sentence has two independent clauses:
Please quote, which three sentences?
The article in the Sidney Hearld was bought and paid for by MetroRail.
Please post Risbey’s conclusion.
Thus my claim that fossil fuels are far far safer after they’ve been burned.
Wow, THREE Professors of Philosophy on one thread, amazing. So, which clause is dependent on the other? There’s no requirement to publish regularly in order to be a professor, nor are only professors allowed to publish regularly.
… and your diction is verbose.
Yessir, whatever you say sir. I’m sure you would have sir. And might I add, your penis is looking especially large and virile today.
Yup, and if anyone else in this thread (who is not on my shit list) is curious, I am happy to document andros’ lying.
With all this silly bickering I’ve lost track of who believes what. Those who think that Man contributes to climate change and that it’s currently fucking things up bigtime stand by me, and those who believe otherwise stand with FXMastermind. Hurry up. I don’t have all night. And beware, because I can put together a run-on sentence of Dickensian proportions and I’m not afraid to do it. :rolleyes:
Lol, that assumes you ever knew who believes what which is doubtful given your lying/weaseling. I doubt that you even understand what you yourself believe.
Where do I stand if I believe man is only fucking things up for himself. Vultures should do better with warmer temps.