In article .com,
"Weatherlawyer" wrote:

Linc Madison wrote:
In article . com,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Timberwoof pointed out the obvious:

You know, you could go back over two centuries of weather data and
an ephemeris and actually get data to support your wacky inference.

And so could you. So where does that leave your statement?

In vacuuo?

YOU (Weatherlawyer) are making the claim, so YOU have to get the data
to support it.

The burden of proof is NOT on the skeptic.

I was merely passing wind to the fatuous.

It's bloody obvious that I or anyone "know, you could go back over
two centuries of weather data and an ephemeris and actually get data".
The prick must have had some idea that he was stating the obvious but
I see now he is not the only one who has trouble thinking.

Another sure sign of a kook is to hurl insults at anyone who points out
proper protocol to him. For instance, I asked you to come up with some
historical records to back up your wacky notion of correlation between
.... whatever the hell it was, earthquakes, moon phases, electrical
storms, whatever. Someone else pointed out that I was correct in asking
you to do that ... and all you can do, instead of actually defending
your position, is to say that we have "trouble thinking."

If you think we have such trouble thinking, then all you have to do is
present your data and support your interpretation. But in your case,
since there is no such correlation, that is too much to ask of you, and
you know it, so let me just step into my full-entry fire suit so you can
just flame away, like the lame kook you are.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"Like this cup," the master daid, "you are full of your own opinions and
speculations. How can I show you anything unless you first empty your cup?"