On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:11:12 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:05:00 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:15:49 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
sayd the following:

Global Warming Dominates the "Live Science" Top 10 for 2007
Please see:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...indings-1.html

#1 - Climate Change
#2 - Arctic Meltdown
#3 - Extreme Weather
#4 - Alternative Energy
#5 - Carbon Dioxide
#8 - Drought

Isn't live science the company that produces magazines for profit?


Is that possible?

As with those working for oil companies are criticized so should those
working for "for profit" companies on the other side of the debate.

LiveScience should disband all profit making activities and then we
can know they have no bias.



Why would they be biased one way or another?

http://www.imaginova.com/partners/

CNN, lol.

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:11:12 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:05:00 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:15:49 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
sayd the following:

Global Warming Dominates the "Live Science" Top 10 for 2007
Please see:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...indings-1.html

#1 - Climate Change
#2 - Arctic Meltdown
#3 - Extreme Weather
#4 - Alternative Energy
#5 - Carbon Dioxide
#8 - Drought
Isn't live science the company that produces magazines for profit?


Is that possible?
As with those working for oil companies are criticized so should those
working for "for profit" companies on the other side of the debate.

LiveScience should disband all profit making activities and then we
can know they have no bias.


Why would they be biased one way or another?

http://www.imaginova.com/partners/

CNN, lol.


You bubble puppies crack me up. CNN is listed immediately prior to Fox
News. Neither wouldn't know the real news if it bit 'em in the ass.
Sure, the Democrats suck , but so do the Republicans.

"Crackles McFarly" wrote
Isn't live science the company that produces magazines for profit?

Nope. It's a web site that acts as a clearing house for research
announcements from University faculty offices.

"Crackles McFarly" wrote
As with those working for oil companies are criticized so should those
working for "for profit" companies on the other side of the debate.

Live science doens't write the articles that appear on it's website.
Universities do.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:03:29 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Sure, the Democrats suck , but so do the Republicans.

At least you admit BOTH suck.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:19:59 -0800, "V-for-Vendicar"
sayd the following:


"Crackles McFarly" wrote
Isn't live science the company that produces magazines for profit?

Nope. It's a web site that acts as a clearing house for research
announcements from University faculty offices.




Who DECIDES which article makes it to the web/print?

"Crackles McFarly" wrote
Who DECIDES which article makes it to the web/print?

Why the people who are part of the global conspiracy to make you look like a
fool of course.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:48:36 -0800, "V-for-Vendicar"
sayd the following:


"Crackles McFarly" wrote
Who DECIDES which article makes it to the web/print?

Why the people who are part of the global conspiracy to make you look like a
fool of course.



Notice how my last question didn't get an answer you thought you could
defend SO INSTEAD you inserted some stupid joke?

Again, who decides which articles does and does NOT get published in
LiveScience?

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:03:29 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Sure, the Democrats suck , but so do the Republicans.

At least you admit BOTH suck.



Along with 95% of the people in general.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:41:29 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:03:29 -0800, David sayd
the following:

Sure, the Democrats suck , but so do the Republicans.

At least you admit BOTH suck.



Along with 95% of the people in general.

Too low.