For general debate and discussion UNLESS you've just had 14 Ketel One Bloody Marys. In that case, please WALK SAFELY home, and sleep it off!
|
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open ThreadFor general debate and discussion UNLESS you've just had 14 Ketel One Bloody Marys. In that case, please WALK SAFELY home, and sleep it off!
Read comments
Related StoriesMost Emailed Stories
Related Topics | |
Comments Policy
Leon Love Letter
October 17, 2007 - 11:03 ET by JimboI had this love letter from Leon on my private mail this morning:
________________________
Read message
From: Leon
To: Jimbo
Subject: Sweeet
Date: October 16, 2007 - 15:58
Hey buddy way to call me a liar concerning my claim i've never made a nixon or reagan joke. Nice. Way to attack based on ZERO knowledge. Just so you know, I was born in 1981. Nixon and Reagan jokes have never really been 'in' in my generation. Sorry there old man. I missed the boat on all that fun.
____________________________
The "born in 1981" answers alot! I guess Leon is also incapable of telling a joke containing someone from prior to his generation. Interesting.
Hey Leon - two cavemen walk into a bar.... ahh... never mind.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Sorry, Jimbo, but I think you've missed the point of his PM
October 17, 2007 - 11:06 ET by RJSee, Leon doesn't like it when others use (or even intimate) the word "liar", because that's his very own favorite word to throw at conservatives.... ;^)
Except RJ, I can actually
October 17, 2007 - 11:34 ET by LeonExcept RJ,
I can actually quote the lies I am accusing others of spouting b/c I have they are documented within specific threads.
Jimbo accused me of lying about never telling a Reagan joke. There's no way to ever prove an attack like this, so why even make it in the first place?
The Newsbusters have a habit of attacking people about things they can't prove. It's way lame.
Things I can't Prove
October 17, 2007 - 11:38 ET by JimboI can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow or that you were once beaten up by a fat chick, but I'm pretty sure both are true!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Jimbo, I've never fought
October 17, 2007 - 11:41 ET by LeonJimbo,
I've never fought a woman. We don't do that where I'm from.
Not sure how you were raised, so I won't comment.
Leon
October 17, 2007 - 11:52 ET by JimboI never said you fought a woman. I said you were beaten up by one. Big difference.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
So you did not fight
October 17, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Dan The Man 2So you did not fight back?? Sorry couldn't resist that wide open invitation. The besty way to end this, assuming you want to is to shut up for a while.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
you were once beaten up by a fat chick...
October 17, 2007 - 11:42 ET by vrwc13...actually a home-skoled, creationist fat chick...
v
Leon hates fat people!!" and home-skolirs!! and creationists!!
. . . from Greenland . . .
October 17, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Free Stinker. . . from Greenland . . .
uh huh....you can "quote" them...sure you can
October 17, 2007 - 11:43 ET by RJLike yesterday, when you, in a snit of hypersentistivity, called BT a liar because she laughed at you. :^)
I've challenged you many times to back up your accusations, Leon, but you either run and hide or come up with a sad, tortured "defense."
The "Leon Signal"
October 17, 2007 - 11:45 ET by JimboRight now Leon is sending up the “Leon Signal” so Balboa will know to come and help him. It’s kinda like the bat signal, the only difference is that it is a giant “L” instead of a bat. Contrary to popular belief, the “L” doesn’t stand for “Leon”…..
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Right now Leon is sending up the “Leon Signal”
October 17, 2007 - 11:51 ET by vrwc13..."run-as-fas-as-you-can-man" will probably answer the call also.
He likes Leon too. ;^)
"At least I am a guy and not desperately trying to be one." Leon
v
Leon hates fat people!!" and homeskolirs!! and creationists!!
V, You're making fun of
October 17, 2007 - 11:53 ET by LeonV,
You're making fun of TheGingerman b/c he instructed you on the truth concerning Greenland?
I'm glad he did. Saved me the trouble.
It's not his fault you were homeschooled and as such lack basic geographical/historical knowledge.
Or are you still trying to claim that Greenland was named Greenland b/c it was very Green at the time of it's naming? haha
Hey V – get a load of
October 17, 2007 - 12:01 ET by JimboHey V – get a load of that! You were “instructed” by a lib!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Leon
October 17, 2007 - 12:02 ET by JimboLeon - if everything was named because of how it looked or in your case acted, well.... let's just say in your case let's be thankfull that's not the way it works.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
instructed you on the truth concerning Greenland?
October 17, 2007 - 12:03 ET by vrwc13...Leon, Leon, Leon. How you go on.
"run-as-fas-as-you-can-man" provided a link with numerous "histories" of Greenland. He choose one. I choose others. There is no "definitive" answer.
But you seem to come the the Algore skuul of thought; "the debates over when I say it is."
Nice try though.
v
btw: I was taught in the pubik skuuls, my 6 kids have been, are, and always will be homeskulid.
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Actually V, There is a
October 17, 2007 - 12:07 ET by LeonActually V,
There is a definitive answer. Ginger was being facetious when he put up the Google link. He was implying that you were lazy and showing you how easy that information was to come by.
Check any reputable history text, there is a very definitive answer. Erik The Red was exiled. Went to Greenland. Wanted to convince more people to settle there (essentially to keep him company). Gave the land an enticing name to attract settlers. When they got there, they were disappointed to learn that only the southern coast of Greenland was green (again, common knowledge that all of Greenland aside from the very southern edge of the coase was under ice).
This is the definitive answer. We know definitively that Greenland was not Green when it was named.
These are facts. Sorry tiger. You should give up on this one.
We know definitively that Greenland was not Green when it...
October 17, 2007 - 12:32 ET by vrwc13Erik the Red’s discovery of Greenland
It is for this reason that in the same year he sailed west and discovered a country with an inviting fjord landscape and fertile green valleys. He was extremely impressed with the new country’s resources and he returned to Iceland to spread the word of "The green land".
___________________________
Source? Try this one Leon. Now go tell the people of the "official site" of Greenland they are wrong!
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Look at you! Super
October 17, 2007 - 12:42 ET by LeonLook at you! Super sluething, but the site is wrong.
Sorry people of Greenland don't even know their own history (that's a shame! haha):
When Leif was a young boy, his father Eric was banished three years from Iceland for killing a man during a dispute. Unable to return to Norway and now banished from Iceland, Erik took his family and sailed westward following reports of a new land off the coast of Iceland. The reports were true and Eric the Red reached a cold, rough land of glaciers and icebergs. He purposely called it "Greenland", hoping that this motivating name would attract other colonists
(link)
"He sailed c.982 to seek land reputed to lie W of Iceland. The discovery of Greenland followed, and Eric and his Viking followers spent three years exploring the south and west coasts. On his return to Iceland he promoted a colonizing venture and is said to have given Greenland its attractive name to encourage settlers."
(link)
"Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:
Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red, who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors -- climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.
But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day."
Read any reputable encyclopedia my good man. I can keep going with citations if you like. That only took a few minutes.
Your one or two links to my thousands doesn't present a very formidable contest.
You are dead wrong on this. Just give it up. You're beginning to look ridiculous.
...people of Greenland don't even know their own history. Leon
October 17, 2007 - 12:50 ET by vrwc13"...thus the debate is over" - Leon
v
ta ta Leon, your're real gem...
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26
...and then other people
October 17, 2007 - 12:53 ET by TruthMonger...and then other people move there - notice it is not green - but still continue to call it "green land" - on up to the year 2006 - even the official site of "Green" land fiendishly attempts to perpetuate the "green" land myth of old - thanks to Exxon bribery regarding man-made AGW, no doubt
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, Is Iceland covered in
October 17, 2007 - 13:43 ET by LeonTM,
Is Iceland covered in Ice?
is Jesus covered in
October 17, 2007 - 13:46 ET by TruthMongeris Jesus covered in Chocolate?
no it is not - it's covered with lava rocks actually
A service of the new NB respect police
TM, Point being a name is
October 17, 2007 - 14:04 ET by LeonTM,
Point being a name is a name is a name.
Not always accurate.
Is Iceland covered in Ice?
October 17, 2007 - 13:54 ET by vrwc13Is Queensland coverd with Queens?
Great comeback Leon. Simple and plain.
v
I was hoping to not have to expose my high level of hipness, but this tragic thread (and VRWC's insane understanding of the functioning of the English language) has required me to do so. Leon
Is America covered in
October 17, 2007 - 14:02 ET by JimboIs America covered in Americans?
Nope.
And its a damn shame.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason .
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Priceless Leon. You just
October 17, 2007 - 12:56 ET by bassndudePriceless Leon. You just insulted an entire country. You call some of the worlds foremost citizens and scientists, idiots. They dont even know the history of their own country. Where they do the research, dig in the ice, find old farms that have been covered with ice for centuries, old mines, and other settlements, but they dont know? You are indeed, a laughable, little idiot Leon. Your so wraped up in your own narrow, little world, you would deny the truth if it conflicts with your own petty little view. No wonder the public schools are in such trouble. They graduate people like you.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Priceless Leon. You just insulted an entire country.
October 17, 2007 - 13:01 ET by vrwc13This message was brought to you by bassndude and The Home-skolirs of Amerika Asoseashun.
Well Bass, Apparently
October 17, 2007 - 14:01 ET by LeonWell Bass,
Apparently the webmaster of greenland.com isn't aware of his own history.
I mean, we all know there are plenty of Americans that believe the wrong things about America. I.E. Paul Revere.
If you don't believe the scientific data that indicates that at the time of Discovery, only the southern coast of Greenland was Green, then do you also reject the primary sources written about this experience?
For all of you out there that want to know the truth about Greenland, I suggest reading the Grœnlendinga Saga. This is a primary source documenting the colonization of Greenland. According to this literature, Erik The Red, after finally locating a hospitable location for a settlement on the southern coast of Greenland, settled there for two years. He then returned to Iceland to convince others to join him. He decided to name Greenland as such b/c he figured if his land had a good name, then people would go there.
(LINK)
So Scientific data AND Norse literature back up my claim.
My gut feeling is that you're all just arguing for the sake of argument. The settling/naming of Greenland is common knowledge. It was a well-thought out scam to attract settlers. It wasn't b/c it was exceedingly green.
I feel like I'm talking to children.
I feel like I'm talking to children.
October 17, 2007 - 14:13 ET by vrwc13Bass, maybe Leon was Erik the Red himself in a previous life?
v
btw: was Erik the Red fat?
I was hoping to not have to expose my high level of hipness - Leon
V, I'll take that post
October 17, 2007 - 16:31 ET by LeonV,
I'll take that post for what it is.
A white flag waving in the air.
A white flag waving in the air.
October 17, 2007 - 18:08 ET by vrwc13...ah once again Leon claims victory in the midst of defeat...kind of like running for a touchdown to the wrong end-zone and wondering why your teammates don't join in your victory dance! ) :
v
simple and plain
vwrc
October 17, 2007 - 18:44 ET by BlondeTalk about cheering for the wrong way touchdown Leon's just scored...
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
So Blonde, You agree with
October 17, 2007 - 18:55 ET by LeonSo Blonde,
You agree with V that Greenland was named Greenland b/c it was lush and fertile at the time that Erik the Red arrived there?
Meaning you disagree with me, Ancient Viking texts, and scientific fact that only the southern coast of Greenland was green at the time of Erik the Red's discovery and he called it Greenland as a ploy to attract others to move there.
You sure about that?
I'm not one to give advice, but generally, it's not advisable to join a team that's already been defeated.
No Leon
October 17, 2007 - 19:01 ET by BlondeI believe you've once again proved how silly you are....you've had your rear end kicked all over this thread today.
What a train wreck.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
(This is code for "I have
October 17, 2007 - 19:04 ET by balboa(This is code for "I have no answer, Leon.")
Ha absolutely correct
October 17, 2007 - 19:08 ET by LeonHa absolutely correct Bal.
Have you been reading this thread?
Does it look as crazy as I think it does?
I never knew that the naming of Greenland could cause such animosity. I had always assumed that Erik the Red naming Greenland as a way to attract more settlers was common knowledge.
Looks like I learned something today. It isn't! haha.
That's because you're part
October 17, 2007 - 19:11 ET by balboaThat's because you're part of the hideous liberal secret agenda. Didn't you know that?
Ssssh Bal, Don't spill
October 17, 2007 - 19:14 ET by LeonSsssh Bal,
Don't spill the beans. We can't let them know how important it is for the liberal secret agenda to pin down the reasoning behind the naming of Greenland.
It's the crux of our entire operation! Without that we have nothing! NOTHIIIIIING!
Well Bal
October 17, 2007 - 19:09 ET by BlondeRight on cue.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
No what? No my above
October 17, 2007 - 19:05 ET by LeonNo what? No my above post is inaccurate? You don't believe that VRWC was right?
OR you do agree with V's claim that Greenland was named Greenland by Erik the Red b/c it was lush and green?
You must if you believe that I've been proven to be silly in my assertion that it was named Greenland as a way to attract settlers and not b/c it was an accurate description.
Ok. That's fine. Be wrong, I don't care.
blonde
October 18, 2007 - 09:05 ET by vrwc13was the one blonde cheerleader cheering you?
v
inquiring minds want to know
V, Your post would make
October 17, 2007 - 18:47 ET by LeonV,
Your post would make sense except for the fact that I'm right.
But maybe if you keep repeating your false claim that Erik the Red named Greenland, Greenland b/c it was lush and green, maybe it will come true.
ha.
Riiiight, Leon
October 17, 2007 - 18:54 ET by BlondeLike you were right about "Pakistan is not our ally" because you said so (five hundred times, I might add). Debate over.
Sheesh, Leon. Get a grip would you?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, Why then was
October 17, 2007 - 18:58 ET by LeonBlonde,
Why then was Greenland called Greenland by Erik the Red?
Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland...
October 17, 2007 - 13:29 ET by JRLeon, apparently you do not keep up on scientific discoveries. Recent ice core tests indicate, "high-altitude southern Greenland, currently lying below more than 2 kilometers of ice, was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects within the past million years. The results provide direct evidence in support of a forested southern Greenland and suggest that many deep ice cores may contain genetic records of paleoenvironments in their basal sections".
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5834/111?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22+Martin+Sharp%22&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
JR Leon went out shopping
October 17, 2007 - 13:32 ET by JayTeeHe's looking in Minnesota for a Viking Hat, with horns.
As soon as he puts it on, he will be an expert Viking.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
He's looking in Minnesota for a Viking Hat, with horns.
October 17, 2007 - 13:38 ET by vrwc13...and next Leon will be refuting that Wisconsin is the "official" cheese state!
v
"At least I am a guy and not desperately trying to be one." Leon
skol baby (too dots over
October 17, 2007 - 13:41 ET by TruthMongerskol baby (too dots over the o)
A service of the new NB respect police
Sad, but true.
October 17, 2007 - 13:39 ET by JRSigh...
RJ, Unfortunately for
October 17, 2007 - 13:47 ET by LeonRJ,
Unfortunately for your argument, we aren't talking about Greenland within the past million years.
We're talking about Greenland since it was settled. (982 AD).
This argument has never been specifically about the time of discovery. And at the time of discovery it is well-documented that only the southern coast was green.
Apparently you don't keep up on relevance to the debate. You bring some study to the table talking about the last million years while we're talking about the past 1,000 years.
Way to contribute! haha.
Haha yourself, Leon
October 17, 2007 - 15:35 ET by RJthat was JR, not me....apparently, you have something of a fixation on your "favorite NBer." ;^)
apologies RJ. Darn
October 17, 2007 - 16:32 ET by Leonapologies RJ.
Darn dyslexia!
Well in that case, your inverse is off base :)
Vikings did eat fish and other marine life
October 17, 2007 - 16:53 ET by JRThe ice core data link refutes your claim that Greenland was never lush. The core samples indicate Greenland was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects within the past million years. The results provide direct evidence in support of a forested southern Greenland.
As for the "Vikings didn't eat fish" claim - Untrue. Here's a document from Radiocarbon concerning the Viking's average diet - http://64.233.179.104/scholar?num=30&hl=en&lr=&q=cache:B75LaHG-EWUJ:www.radiocarbon.org/PDF/v41n2/Arneborg.pdf+greenland+climate+norse
"...the average diet of the Norse people changed from 20% marine to 80% marine during the approximately 500 years that the settlement lasted..."
"...Recently, Greenland ice-sheet temperature data have been used for a climatic reconstruction, which is specific for the high-latitude North Atlantic region (Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998). The results indicate a steady decrease from a temperature maximum around AD 1000 to a minimum around AD 1500, which may have gradually forced the Greenland Norse to change their subsistence pattern."
Or this concerning climate change during the Viking colonization - http://www.geus.dk/publications/review-greenland-98/gsb183p61-67.pdf
"From Mediaeval Icelandic sources we know that after the first period of colonisation, sea ice off south-eastern Greenland had significantly expanded, causing growing problems to Norse shipping between Iceland and Greenland. Numerous indications have been found in the northern hemisphere pointing to severe climate deterioration between about AD 1350 and AD 1850 (Little Ice Age), following the end of the Mediaeval Warm Period or Climatic Optimum (c. AD 900–1350)."
Here's another one from the National Science Foundation discussing climate changes - http://nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03048/nsf03048_7.pdf
"The evidence indicates that warm conditions persisted during the early to mid-Holocene and that climate has become cooler and more variable during the past 4000 years. These variations permitted Norse settlement of Greenland during a warmer period, and forced abandonment when the climate cooled."
Please note that scientist do not know for a fact what caused the Vikings to abandon their settlements. They continue to study the evidence, and get closer to the truth each day. Please don't insult us by claiming you know more that the experts.
Leon's Way
October 17, 2007 - 16:57 ET by JimboIsn't it tiresome how Leon says that we do no research, we post no facts, but then when he is faced with something like this, he plain out says "it's wrong" and ignores it?
Poor Leon. A soul lost forever to the dark side.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
Jimbo, Could you tell me
October 17, 2007 - 17:11 ET by LeonJimbo,
Could you tell me how JR's post relates to our debate concerning the naming of Greenland following Erik the Red's original settlement?
Explain how his evidence is in any way relevant.
I.e. when were we talking about Greenland a million years ago or when did I claim that vikings don't eat fish?
You should read what you're responding to before you respond.
Well Leon
October 17, 2007 - 17:15 ET by JimboI guess that's about the only response you had left after I took your standard "it ain't true" response away from you. It's OK - you were just going to hurt yourself with it anyway.
And sorry Leon - after just rereading over all your posts today, I am not about to get baited into another "serious" discussion with you. You just aren't capable or worth it.
I am going to hang out with my overweight homeschooled Viking friend. He only has a few days here before he has to go back to Greenland.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
JR, I never argued
October 17, 2007 - 17:09 ET by LeonJR,
I never argued Greenland was never green.
Again to reiterate since you obviously can't read. We are speaking specifically about the condition of Greenland in 982 AD.
982 AD
982 AD
982 AD
Got it? This is not a conversation about whether or not Greenland was green in the past MILLION years. It is specifically about the condition of Greenland when Erik the Red arrived there.
SO what is the purpose of all of your research? You jumped into a conversation, had no idea what it was about, and as such, you've wasted your time and our time arguing something that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
And when did I claim that Vikings didn't eat fish??? I've never said that. What are you talking about? The Vikings were a sea faring people. Sea faring peoples eat fish. Again, way to waste your own time talking about something that has nothing to do with anything.
Three cheers for your effort. Unfortunately what you've posted has no impact on OUR debate concerning the rationale behind Erik the Red naming Greenland, Greenland.
haha. WOW!
Leon, here's part of your previous quote.
October 17, 2007 - 17:17 ET by JRFrom http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2007/10/17/open-thread#comment-457146
"'..But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking's disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.'
Read any reputable encyclopedia my good man. I can keep going with citations if you like. That only took a few minutes."
Apparently, you enjoy contradicting yourself, Leon.
JR
October 17, 2007 - 17:22 ET by JimboJR - as you know, Leon's responses are never anything more than quick cut and paste jobs from sites he thinks supports his position. He does a cursory review of the material and posts it. The detail you are quoting clearly was missed by our Trollus Emeritus.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
Right JR, 1) I never
October 17, 2007 - 17:24 ET by LeonRight JR,
1) I never said VIKING NEVER ate fish.
2) The author of that quote was referring specifically to the original settlement of Erik the Red. They starved b/c they didn't take advantage of the fishing. YOUR evidence supports this, i.e. over the 500 years of settling marine animals went from 20% of the diet to 80% of the diet.
3) Now address every other off topic comment you made
Dance Fred Astair...
October 17, 2007 - 17:26 ET by JimboDance Fred Astair... Dance!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
Translation: I don't know
October 17, 2007 - 17:28 ET by LeonTranslation:
I don't know why I supported JR's original post because now that I've read it, I realize it has nothing to do with the naming of Greenland, which is the only thing that WE are debating.
Or this:
October 17, 2007 - 17:41 ET by JimboYou got yourself slapped around so much on this thread today that you can't tell which way is up.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
"Numerous indications have
October 17, 2007 - 17:23 ET by JoeBob"Numerous indications have been found in the northern hemisphere pointing to severe climate deterioration between about AD 1350 and AD 1850 (Little Ice Age), following the end of the Mediaeval Warm Period or Climatic Optimum (c. AD 900–1350)."
Now, I homskul my kids too, so I had to work a while to figure out that 982AD falls between 900AD and 1350AD, but once I did, it made sense to me.
For a guy that's 26 years old, you need to try and sound less like a snot-nosed brat.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
What are you talking
October 17, 2007 - 17:26 ET by LeonWhat are you talking about?
What does this have to do with the reasoning behind Erik the Red's naming of Greenland?
Snot Nosed Brat
October 17, 2007 - 17:30 ET by JimboAbout the fact that you are a snot nosed brat?
Nothing.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
and
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed" (open thread 10/17/07)
You're right, Leon, I have
October 17, 2007 - 17:40 ET by JoeBobYou're right, Leon, I have no idea why I'd think that 982AD being in the middle of the Mediaeval Warm Period or Climatic Optimum would have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING being GREEN!
I despair for the quality of public education, but hell, that was even before I met you.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
So JoeBob, How does the
October 17, 2007 - 18:52 ET by LeonSo JoeBob,
How does the fact that there was a Medeivel Warm Period in 982 prove that Greenland was green?
We know from historical record and scientific data that only the southern coast was green. Sorry. Facts are a pain sometimes.
I guess you'd also argue that Anartica was green too in 982, you know, b/c of the warm period and all.
Sweet logic. Pick up a book and read about Greenland before jumping into a conversation you know nothing about.
All I know is that you've
October 18, 2007 - 10:45 ET by JoeBobAll I know is that you've ignored every presented source but your own cherry-picked ones. That's not using logic, that's creating dogma. Your argument isn't as unequivocal as you try to make it sound, so why not stop acting like an arrogant prick?
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
vrwc13 Looks good only Leon would NOT believe it
October 17, 2007 - 12:50 ET by JayTeeLeon is a revisionist ......... he wants to revise everything, including NB, sorta turn it into his own personal Web site.
A Nordic axe mailed from Greeenland is a fixin to chop him into smaller pieces after you finish with him.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Maybe Greenland was named
October 17, 2007 - 21:53 ET by ReformedLib Re-FormedConMaybe Greenland was named for a Ziploc...
Yellow and blue make green!
Well I can only hope you
October 17, 2007 - 12:08 ET by LeonWell I can only hope you aren't trying to teach them any kind of Scandanavian history because you clearly are clueless when it comes to the vikings.
RJ, BT was asking the
October 17, 2007 - 11:51 ET by LeonRJ,
BT was asking the question as a vehicle to accuse me of ignoring her, when I hadn't ignored her.
I'm sorry I can't explain the intricacies of understanding the English language to you.
Awww that's cute, Leon
October 17, 2007 - 12:33 ET by RJYou got all pi$$y yesterday because a girl laughed at you....and today you've rewritten it in your mind to make yourself the object of a girl's anger because she thought you had ignored her. Awwww.... ;^)
Leon Love Letter II
October 17, 2007 - 11:16 ET by vrwc13I had this love letter from Leon on my private mail this morning:
From: Leon
To: vrwc13
Subject: When Homeschooling Goes Wrong...duh duh duuuuuh...
Date: October 16, 2007 - 17:27
I'm sure you saw that PA teen that was stockpiling weapons with the help of his mother. That's what happens when you homeschool.
_______________________________
so this guy is representative of the other 2.5 MILLION others! Kind of like saying everyone born in 1981 is just like Leon!
v
Leon hates fat people!! and homeschoolers!! and creationists!!
I’m jealous.
October 17, 2007 - 11:23 ET by JimboI’m jealous. I thought I was the only one getting love letters from Leon. That tramp!
I’m kinda laughing to myself that he has relegated himself to getting the last word by sending PM’s. The guy has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for so long he has worn through it and has fallen into the basement.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Jimbo, Again, you can't
October 17, 2007 - 11:28 ET by LeonJimbo,
Again, you can't attack someone and then act shocked when they send you a message.
You were logged off. Had to make sure you realized your error in assumption.
I'll tell you, the NEwsbusters are a sensitive crowd. Love to dish out the attacks, hate when people respond to them.
Lame,
I wasnt shocked in the
October 17, 2007 - 11:32 ET by JimboI wasnt shocked in the slightest. Actually, quite the contrary.
So Mr. Leon, are you telling us that you have never responded to someone on this forum in public while they were logged off?
You are a liar and a hater, plain and simple.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
actually Jimbo that's...
October 17, 2007 - 11:38 ET by vrwc13You are a liar and a hater, simple and plain.
v
Leon hates fat people!!" and home-skolirs!! and creationists!!
v....
October 17, 2007 - 12:09 ET by MightyMouthDon't forget assdumb, Leon is a real assdumb.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I thought I was the only one getting love letters from Leon.
October 17, 2007 - 11:34 ET by vrwc13...sorry to be the one to break the news to you. I imagine there are others. Maybe we can have a "show us your Leon PM's day" today!
v
Leon hates fat people!!" and home-skolirs!! and creationists!!
vrwc13
October 17, 2007 - 11:23 ET by USA4freedomTouche..................!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Awh Jimbo, Don't like
October 17, 2007 - 11:21 ET by LeonAwh Jimbo,
Don't like when you disingenuously attack people and they respond?
Calling someone a liar when you have no idea whether or not they are actually lying is cowardly and pathetic.
As is sharing your private mail in a desperate attempt to receive consolation from your internet friends.
Here, here little guy. If you need a shoulder to cry on, look no further than Leon.
Morning Leon!
October 17, 2007 - 11:27 ET by JimboDisingenuously? Hardly.
Actually, I love when you respond so you can show the world how shallow and pathetic you are, particularly when you sound off about overweight people.
As for cowardly and pathetic, I would say hiding your hatred behind PM’s where noone can see them fits that description nicely.
Oh yeah – and those tears of mine you were talking about? They are tears of laughter. I might also need to change my underwear if you keep this up.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason
and
Leon hates fat people!!"
Jimbo, Enlighten us as to
October 17, 2007 - 11:30 ET by LeonJimbo,
Enlighten us as to how you concluded that I've made a Reagan or Nixon joke.
I'm wondering where that evidence is recorded.
Accusing someone of lying over something so trivial is a sign of a pathetic person.
I simply don't see the point in making a claim you can't back up. And then when confronted about your lack of evidence, you give some snide remark.
Now that's effective debating, but to be honest, I'm tired of all the sand in my eyes.
Leon's