Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-12-2017, 04:01 PM   #1
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,825
Climate Change

Republicans still have their heads in the sand, even after a year of glaring examples of extreme weather; the EPA director says this is not the time to discuss it.

Seems like the perfect time to kick it around since you are the director of the EPA not FEMA.
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 04:41 PM   #2
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,436
I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.


Makes you wonder....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 05:52 PM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

those who deny that there is climate change

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
name one
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 06:41 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.


Makes you wonder....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What I wonder, is why none of the climate change fanatics, stop to ask why the High Priest of the movement, al gore, chooses to live his life in a way that is completely at odds with what he professes to believe. Multiple huge homes, private jets, etc. also, most of the dire predictions made. Y these people, haven't come close to coming true. That tells me their models are flawed. I'm not sure there's another conclusion.

We should always be investigating the health of our planet and making changes when necessary. But not reacting to hysteria.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 02:03 PM   #5
boot man
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
boot man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fairhaven
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
I've noticed a trend. Many of those who deny that there is climate change believe without question that a guy built a huge boat and put a pair of every species of animal on our planet on board.


Makes you wonder....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So this isn't the first time it sucked to be a penguin, walk all the way to the Middle East, get on a boat, boat runs aground in alps, walk back to Antarctica.

I guess my life's not all that bad after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
boot man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 04:48 PM   #6
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Republicans still have their heads in the sand, even after a year of glaring examples of extreme weather; the EPA director says this is not the time to discuss it.

Seems like the perfect time to kick it around since you are the director of the EPA not FEMA.
Weren't you just bitching about ethanol gas ??? That's a product of all this craziness
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 05:44 PM   #7
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,825
Yeah that was a bust, but infrastructure, hybrids, all electric, wind and solar. These technologies would have and should have been made available a decade ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 05:51 PM   #8
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
infrastructure, hybrids, all electric, wind and solar. These technologies would have and should have been made available a decade ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
they weren't available a decade ago??
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:33 PM   #9
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
they weren't available a decade ago??
What we have today could have been up and running over a decade ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:16 AM   #10
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Nobody denies that the climate changes. What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it. Hurricanes, despite the hysteria are not more frequent or more powerful then they have been in the past .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last edited by buckman; 09-13-2017 at 10:34 AM..
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 02:31 PM   #11
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Nobody denies that the climate changes. What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it. Hurricanes, despite the hysteria are not more frequent or more powerful then they have been in the past .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe not, but you add sea level rise to the equation and it's a different ball game. I hope regulations change regarding rebuilding in these areas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:15 PM   #12
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Maybe not, but you add sea level rise to the equation and it's a different ball game. I hope regulations change regarding rebuilding in these areas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The sea hasn't risen by anywhere near the degree the "experts" have predicted . I live on the water and under the Obama admin they changed the flood maps , that in my opinion just resulted in higher ins rates for people that will never see water anywhere near their homes . It's a scam , but he'll ya, increase the cost of building while your at it .
It's BS !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:20 PM   #13
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
The sea hasn't risen by anywhere near the degree the "experts" have predicted . I live on the water and under the Obama admin they changed the flood maps , that in my opinion just resulted in higher ins rates for people that will never see water anywhere near their homes . It's a scam , but he'll ya, increase the cost of building while your at it .
It's BS !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
NOTHING that the "experts" predicted would happen, has happened. Somehow, that doesn't reduce their credibility by one zillionth of a percent (they just changed the name of the movement from global warming to climate change, and we weren't supposed to notice). If these people's predictions came true, My house would be underwater, and North Dakota would be exporting pineapples and sugar cane by now.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 03:13 AM   #14
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
this is a brilliant article....

"mostly a series of bullet points about the American Lands Council which he somehow connected to white supremacy, right wing fanaticism, and most bizarrely of all the Kim Davis controversy. I couldn’t believe that someone who was a “scientific” person felt the need to use the guilt by association trap, the screeching leftist “Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!” nonsense in a discussion about land use."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/...at-university/



not only is journalism dead....along with that...education....

what did she write?......"It’s propaganda—dogmatic as any religion."

Last edited by scottw; 09-14-2017 at 03:53 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 04:07 AM   #15
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
NOTHING that the "experts" predicted would happen, has happened. Somehow, that doesn't reduce their credibility by one zillionth of a percent (they just changed the name of the movement from global warming to climate change, and we weren't supposed to notice). If these people's predictions came true, My house would be underwater, and North Dakota would be exporting pineapples and sugar cane by now.
Bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
None of the science has made projections like that, at least not any of the published, peer reviewed science. You can hear what you want, but the actual scientists, for the most part are conservative in their projections.

Take sea level rise, measured both using tide gauge and satellite altimeter data. Projections have been for a meter or more by 2100 for a while. Measurements made since the those projections have us on at least that track, with the high end\extreme, due to increased melting of land based ice being 9ft+. This is not a linear process and not the same everywhere due to land subsidence, uplift and even gravitational attraction of water to the ice sheets. All of this doesn't produce 'waterworld' inundation... but go walk around our coastal cities at high tide and add 3ft, 5ft of more to where the water is. Hell go to Annapolis now and see what they have dealt with already with 1 ft of rise.


Al Gore was a senator, VP and made a movie. Not a scientist. He is an advocate, and yes a hypocrite.

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 03:46 PM   #16
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Nobody denies that the climate changes. What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it. Hurricanes, despite the hysteria are not more frequent or more powerful then they have been in the past .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mans involvement is only disputed by those who dispute Climate change . and use the rights talking point

What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it.

Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.

Conservatives

More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.

that says it all
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 03:51 PM   #17
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Mans involvement is only disputed by those who dispute Climate change . and use the rights talking point

What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it.

Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.

Conservatives

More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.

that says it all
But OBAMA!!!!..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:17 PM   #18
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Mans involvement is only disputed by those who dispute Climate change . and use the rights talking point

What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it.

Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.

Conservatives

More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.

that says it all
Follow the money
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:18 PM   #19
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Mans involvement is only disputed by those who dispute Climate change . and use the rights talking point

What is unsettled is how much man has had an impact on it.

Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. The 2010 Anderegg study found that 97-98% of climate researchers publishing most actively in their field agree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.

Conservatives

More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change.

that says it all
Then why does Al Gore (1) lead this movement in the US, and (2) live in a way that absolutely spits in the face of everything they profess to believe. Also, I can't help but notice that of all the dire predictions made by the hard core climate change folks, not one is remotely close to coming true. Their models are based almost exclusively on assumptions, because we don't know what the atmosphere's ability is to absorb changing conditions, or that of the Pacific Ocean. We have no idea.

We should keep studying things honestly. But until Al Gore leads by example, well, I don't buy it. The only thing he has unplugged in the last 15 years, is his treadmill. Ba dum bum pssh.




"that says it all"

Or it could say that that group has an agenda. 99% of card-carrying members of the Screen Actors Guild thinks Trump is worse than Darth Vader. That doesn't make it so.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 04:44 PM   #20
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 3,825
I'm almost 65, so for me, global warming if we are accelerating it makes no difference, but for my kids and their kids; it may be worth s serious debate by all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 08:32 AM   #21
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Bryan I work with models, I sometimes build models for the purposes of predicting insurance losses. The accuracy of any model, is very sensitive to the magnitude of the assumptions that underly the model. In the case of predicting the impacts of climate change, there is a tremendous amount of speculation behind the assumptions. We don't know if the atmosphere or the oceans have the ability to absorb, or offset, increased emissions. We have almost no idea. It's very, very speculative at this point. If you are about to flip a coin a thousand times, we know that you'll get approximately 50% heads. That is established science. You want to predict what the effect will be, of unprecedented emissions? Speculation. The third world has never been developed before, so we have very little actual empirical evidence, upon which to base our assumptions. Which means the assumptions are speculative. The last time I checked, polar bear numbers were increasing. That wasn't supposed to happen if the models were accurate.

I want to pay taxes to fund the research. But I don't like the idea of some limousine liberal, suggesting that people
In developing countries don't have the same right to the cheap comforts ( heat in the winter, a/c in the summer) that the limousine liberal enjoys. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the ranks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:08 AM   #22
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Bryan I work with models, I sometimes build models for the purposes of predicting insurance losses. The accuracy of any model, is very sensitive to the magnitude of the assumptions that underly the model. In the case of predicting the impacts of climate change, there is a tremendous amount of speculation behind the assumptions. We don't know if the atmosphere or the oceans have the ability to absorb, or offset, increased emissions. We have almost no idea. It's very, very speculative at this point. If you are about to flip a coin a thousand times, we know that you'll get approximately 50% heads. That is established science. You want to predict what the effect will be, of unprecedented emissions? Speculation. The third world has never been developed before, so we have very little actual empirical evidence, upon which to base our assumptions. Which means the assumptions are speculative. The last time I checked, polar bear numbers were increasing. That wasn't supposed to happen if the models were accurate.

I want to pay taxes to fund the research. But I don't like the idea of some limousine liberal, suggesting that people
In developing countries don't have the same right to the cheap comforts ( heat in the winter, a/c in the summer) that the limousine liberal enjoys. There is more than a little hypocrisy in the ranks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes there are assumptions.
Absolutely, correct.
But if you company made a model for life insurance based on risk factors, and one variable was for smoking, if there were 100 different models with 100 different assumptions about life expectancy and smoking, and all 100 had a slightly different reduction in life expectancy, but all said you were going to die sooner, your company would charge more for insurance for smokers, right? Or because one models aid average life expectancy is reduced 8 years, and one says 6 years and ones says 4 years, you would say, nope, all models are bad.

The models vary assumptions. They vary parameters in future concentrations, and sequestration and volcanoes and increased cloud cover, and future absorption of carbon in the deep ocean etc etc etc.. But the trend of the models is the same. More GHG's more warming. More warming less land based ice and higher sea levels (among other things).


Actually, from the geologic record, we have a very good idea of past conditions. The last time we saw 400ppm of CO2, was 4 million years ago. The cause of that rise was of course not anthropocentric, but one thought is that changes to ocean heat balances (currents) over long time periods produced changes in T and CO2. At that time average temperatures in the arctic were much higher than present (one link below from Julie B-G's team at UMASS).

Do you dispute the basic physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What do you think of the Pope's stance on climate change?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 12:22 PM   #23
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Yes there are assumptions.
Absolutely, correct.
But if you company made a model for life insurance based on risk factors, and one variable was for smoking, if there were 100 different models with 100 different assumptions about life expectancy and smoking, and all 100 had a slightly different reduction in life expectancy, but all said you were going to die sooner, your company would charge more for insurance for smokers, right? Or because one models aid average life expectancy is reduced 8 years, and one says 6 years and ones says 4 years, you would say, nope, all models are bad.

The models vary assumptions. They vary parameters in future concentrations, and sequestration and volcanoes and increased cloud cover, and future absorption of carbon in the deep ocean etc etc etc.. But the trend of the models is the same. More GHG's more warming. More warming less land based ice and higher sea levels (among other things).


Actually, from the geologic record, we have a very good idea of past conditions. The last time we saw 400ppm of CO2, was 4 million years ago. The cause of that rise was of course not anthropocentric, but one thought is that changes to ocean heat balances (currents) over long time periods produced changes in T and CO2. At that time average temperatures in the arctic were much higher than present (one link below from Julie B-G's team at UMASS).

Do you dispute the basic physics that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

What do you think of the Pope's stance on climate change?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/
I just saw this...all I can say is, I don't believe for a second, that science is anywhere near as close to knowing what the effects of current human activity will be on the planet, as we are to knowing the effects of smoking on health and life expectancy. I can certainly be convinced of that with different data, but not from what I have seen, though I am FAR from knowledgeable.

If one model says smoking cuts life expectancy by 6 years, another says 4 years...than no, I would not conclude all models are worthless. But if the models said 6 and 4 years, and then smokers started living forever, then I would say the models are flawed.

How many of the predictions from the climate change folks have come true, and how many have not? I think polar bear numbers are increasing, and that ice in the Antarctic is advancing. Did any models predict that?

Take my tax dollars and keep researching. Give the research money to objective scientists who aren't ideologically biased. And then share the results with me. And please use some of that money to tell George Clooney to shut the hell up.

And let's due what we can to encourage more development of realistic, feasible green energy. But let's look before we leap.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:03 AM   #24
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 19,436
Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.

The difference between the ozone and what's happening now is that this is related to oil. We as a planet are addicted to it.
Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:15 AM   #25
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


November 11, 2015

Ozone Hole Over Antarctica Nears Record-Breaking Size Again


The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is nearing record-breaking size again, scientists say. In fact, new observations show that the infamous "ozone hole" is currently larger than the entire continent of North America.

Scientists thought the apparent stabilization indicated that the ozone layer was recovering very gradually. But this year's ozone hole surprised them because it formed a whole month later in the year than the ozone hole typically forms, and its size is almost record-breaking.

I was under the impression that Obama had fixed that too
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:40 AM   #26
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

November 11, 2015

I was under the impression that Obama had fixed that too
Obama is also under that impression.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 10:39 AM   #27
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Remember when we had a hole in the ozone ?? We all agreed it was due to refrigerant gasses like freon. Scientists found an option and replaced the bad stuff with safer gases and viola! Low and behold, the ozone started to healed itself.

The difference between the ozone and what's happening now is that this is related to oil. We as a planet are addicted to it.
Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking"

More like, try telling a family that they won't have heat in the winter. It's not as superfluous as drinking, Nebe. Not everyone on the planet can afford a geothermal system. And if we reduce oil usage, who determines who gets to keep using oil, and who doesn't?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 11:17 AM   #28
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Try telling a drunk that he should stop drinking. Good luck...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe, Stop Drinking!!

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 11:24 AM   #29
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 9,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Nebe, Stop Drinking!!
Ummm.
Kev, we're friends on Facebook, and given your posts.. Pot, meet kettle





Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 11:42 AM   #30
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 15,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Ummm.
Kev, we're friends on Facebook, and given your posts.. Pot, meet kettle


Yeah, but there's still hope for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com