On May 15, 9:47*am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. * In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. *"Global warming ended in 1998," they say.

And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your monthly
reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
making **** up)

Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?

On May 14, 3:48*pm, More_Flaps wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. * In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. *"Global warming ended in 1998," they say. *The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

* *The month of April in the year 2008,
* *is linearly projected to be 14.343,
* * * * * * * * * * yet it was 14.41.

The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
The Variance is 0.07121.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.

So, according to your data the current temperature is not
significantly different from the mean....


NO.



Cheers

On May 15, 7:45*pm, Whata Fool wrote:
chemist *wrote:
On May 14, 8:08 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. * In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. *"Global warming ended in 1998," they say. *The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

* *The month of April in the year 2008,
* *is linearly projected to be 14.343,
* * * * * * * * * * yet it was 14.41. - above trend line

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. *So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. *Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. *This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. *Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. *The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
The Variance is 0.07121.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.

Rxy 0.81344 * Rxy^2 0.66168
TEMP = 13.591411 + (0.005829 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 * * * * F = 248.381941
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
* * * * * * * * *yet it was 14.41. -- above the trend line
The sum of the residuals is 16.318899

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59559 * e^(.0004174 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 16.261573

* Rank of the months of April
Year * Temp C * Anomaly * Z score
2007 * 14.64 * * 0.670 * * 2.51
2005 * 14.64 * * 0.670 * * 2.51
2002 * 14.58 * * 0.610 * * 2.28
1998 * 14.56 * * 0.590 * * 2.21
2004 * 14.52 * * 0.550 * * 2.06
2000 * 14.52 * * 0.550 * * 2.06
2003 * 14.49 * * 0.520 * * 1.95
1990 * 14.48 * * 0.510 * * 1.91
2006 * 14.46 * * 0.490 * * 1.84
1991 * 14.44 * * 0.470 * * 1.76
2008 * 14.41 * * 0.440 * * 1.65 --
2001 * 14.39 * * 0.420 * * 1.57
1995 * 14.39 * * 0.420 * * 1.57
MEAN * 13.970 * *0.000 * * 0.00
1885 * 13.65 * *-0.320 * *-1.20
1903 * 13.62 * *-0.350 * *-1.31
1896 * 13.62 * *-0.350 * *-1.31
1884 * 13.62 * *-0.350 * *-1.31
1894 * 13.61 * *-0.360 * *-1.35
1887 * 13.61 * *-0.360 * *-1.35
1917 * 13.60 * *-0.370 * *-1.39
1907 * 13.59 * *-0.380 * *-1.43
1904 * 13.59 * *-0.380 * *-1.43
1908 * 13.58 * *-0.390 * *-1.46
1918 * 13.57 * *-0.400 * *-1.50
1892 * 13.56 * *-0.410 * *-1.54
1909 * 13.55 * *-0.420 * *-1.58
1911 * 13.52 * *-0.450 * *-1.69

The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1540 months of data on this data set:
* -- 661 of them are at or above the norm.
* -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. *A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.


* * *And using the 1950-1980 time span for the norm is a crock, only
a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.

Show us how you would determine the data set norm then, Mr. Fool.

chemist wrote:

On May 14, 8:08 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say. The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
yet it was 14.41. - above trend line

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
The Variance is 0.07121.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.

Rxy 0.81344 Rxy^2 0.66168
TEMP = 13.591411 + (0.005829 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 F = 248.381941
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
yet it was 14.41. -- above the trend line
The sum of the residuals is 16.318899

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59559 * e^(.0004174 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 16.261573

Rank of the months of April
Year Temp C Anomaly Z score
2007 14.64 0.670 2.51
2005 14.64 0.670 2.51
2002 14.58 0.610 2.28
1998 14.56 0.590 2.21
2004 14.52 0.550 2.06
2000 14.52 0.550 2.06
2003 14.49 0.520 1.95
1990 14.48 0.510 1.91
2006 14.46 0.490 1.84
1991 14.44 0.470 1.76
2008 14.41 0.440 1.65 --
2001 14.39 0.420 1.57
1995 14.39 0.420 1.57
MEAN 13.970 0.000 0.00
1885 13.65 -0.320 -1.20
1903 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1896 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1884 13.62 -0.350 -1.31
1894 13.61 -0.360 -1.35
1887 13.61 -0.360 -1.35
1917 13.60 -0.370 -1.39
1907 13.59 -0.380 -1.43
1904 13.59 -0.380 -1.43
1908 13.58 -0.390 -1.46
1918 13.57 -0.400 -1.50
1892 13.56 -0.410 -1.54
1909 13.55 -0.420 -1.58
1911 13.52 -0.450 -1.69

The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1540 months of data on this data set:
-- 661 of them are at or above the norm.
-- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.

But I bet 2008 will be cooler than 2007 whilst fossil fuel use is
going through the roof .

Did Woger actually say 879 are below the norm and only 661 are
above the norm?

And using the 1950-1980 time span for the norm is a crock, only
a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.

But with Hansen in control of the numbers, anything is possible.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 9:47 am, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say.

And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your
monthly
reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
making **** up)

Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?

Your claim stupid.

On May 16, 8:32*pm, "James" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 9:47 am, "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say.

And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your
monthly
reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
making **** up)
Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?

Your claim stupid.

Again now James,
specifically what claim is stupid, and why?

On May 15, 8:16 pm, "hanson" wrote:

Gauche & ........

snip of pointless trolling

I used to think on reading some of your posts elsewhere, that you
actually knew a thing or two, ahaha. Was I wrong?

So why not give us the benefit of your wisdom (if I'm right on that
score) rather than keep up this pointless, valueless and (at worst)
mindless tirade about political views which differ somewhat, but not a
lot, from yours.

On May 17, 8:12 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On May 16, 8:32 pm, "James" wrote:



"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 9:47 am, "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...

April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. "Global warming ended in 1998," they say.

And that pretty much confirms what we've been saying about your
monthly
reports. i.e. It is not reliable. (that's a nice way of saying you are
making **** up)
Specifically now, what do you think is made up, James?

Your claim stupid.

Again now James,
specifically what claim is stupid, and why?

Tut, tut, Roger. Have you been hacking into NASA's network altering
the files of historical temperature measurements? You really are a
naughty boy.

Roger Coppock wrote:

On May 15, 7:45?pm, Whata Fool wrote:
chemist ?wrote:
On May 14, 8:08 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
April was 11th Warmest on NASA's 129-Year Land and Sea Record.

Even though April of this year is 11th warmest, it still is
above the 129-year trend line. ? In the long term therefore,
global mean surface temperatures continue an accelerated rise.

Lately, fossil fools fondly repeat a lie about global warming
slowing down. ?"Global warming ended in 1998," they say. ?The
truth is published here every month in this section of these
reports:

? ?The month of April in the year 2008,
? ?is linearly projected to be 14.343,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? yet it was 14.41. - above trend line

Using the line of regression, the temperature is projected.
If global warming reversed, the actual measured temperatures
would have to fall below the line of regression temperature,
and do so for a year or more. ?So far this has not happened,
not for even two months in a row.

Measured temperatures which are nearly always above projected
temperatures mean that the temperature rise is accelerating.
This is simple geometry. ?Each above the line measured global
temperature raises the slope of the regression line when that
new point joins the data. ?This pattern is now 5 decades old.
Please see:

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Slope1952-2007.jpg

Clearly therefore, the fossil fools lie, and global mean
surface temperatures continue to rise.

These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
They represent the results of tens of millions of readings
taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe
over the last 129 years. ?Yes, the land data are corrected for
the urban heat island effect. ?The sea data do not need to be.
There are few urban centers in the sea.

The Mean April temperature over the last 129 years is 13.970 C.
The Variance is 0.07121.
The Standard Deviation is 0.2669.

Rxy 0.81344 ? Rxy^2 0.66168
TEMP = 13.591411 + (0.005829 * (YEAR-1879))
Degrees of Freedom = 127 ? ? ? ? F = 248.381941
Confidence of nonzero correlation = approximately
0.999999999999999999999999999999 (30 nines), which is darn close to
100%!

The month of April in the year 2008,
is linearly projected to be 14.343,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?yet it was 14.41. -- above the trend line
The sum of the residuals is 16.318899

Equal weight exponential least squares fit:
TEMP = 13.59559 * e^(.0004174 * (YEAR-1879))
The sum of the residuals is 16.261573

? Rank of the months of April
Year ? Temp C ? Anomaly ? Z score
2007 ? 14.64 ? ? 0.670 ? ? 2.51
2005 ? 14.64 ? ? 0.670 ? ? 2.51
2002 ? 14.58 ? ? 0.610 ? ? 2.28
1998 ? 14.56 ? ? 0.590 ? ? 2.21
2004 ? 14.52 ? ? 0.550 ? ? 2.06
2000 ? 14.52 ? ? 0.550 ? ? 2.06
2003 ? 14.49 ? ? 0.520 ? ? 1.95
1990 ? 14.48 ? ? 0.510 ? ? 1.91
2006 ? 14.46 ? ? 0.490 ? ? 1.84
1991 ? 14.44 ? ? 0.470 ? ? 1.76
2008 ? 14.41 ? ? 0.440 ? ? 1.65 --
2001 ? 14.39 ? ? 0.420 ? ? 1.57
1995 ? 14.39 ? ? 0.420 ? ? 1.57
MEAN ? 13.970 ? ?0.000 ? ? 0.00
1885 ? 13.65 ? ?-0.320 ? ?-1.20
1903 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
1896 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
1884 ? 13.62 ? ?-0.350 ? ?-1.31
1894 ? 13.61 ? ?-0.360 ? ?-1.35
1887 ? 13.61 ? ?-0.360 ? ?-1.35
1917 ? 13.60 ? ?-0.370 ? ?-1.39
1907 ? 13.59 ? ?-0.380 ? ?-1.43
1904 ? 13.59 ? ?-0.380 ? ?-1.43
1908 ? 13.58 ? ?-0.390 ? ?-1.46
1918 ? 13.57 ? ?-0.400 ? ?-1.50
1892 ? 13.56 ? ?-0.410 ? ?-1.54
1909 ? 13.55 ? ?-0.420 ? ?-1.58
1911 ? 13.52 ? ?-0.450 ? ?-1.69

The most recent 170 continuous months, or 14 years and 2 months,
on this GLB.Ts+dSST.txt data set are all above the 1951-1980
data set norm of 14 C.
There are 1540 months of data on this data set:
? -- 661 of them are at or above the norm.
? -- 879 of them are below the norm.
This run of 170 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. ?It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence. ?A major volcano eruption, thermonuclear war, or
meteor impact could stop this warming trend for a couple of years,
otherwise expect it to continue.


? ? ?And using the 1950-1980 time span for the norm is a crock, only
a cheating jerk would use those years, the decades of the '60s and '70s
were much colder than the '30s and ''40s.

Show us how you would determine the data set norm then, Mr. Fool.


The data set is not and never was of sufficient precision
to use in energy accounting, there is no hour by hour records for
most of the data set, and daily max and min is meaningless for
energy calculations.

Climate is not a precise temperature, it is a "typical" value,
within a wide range.


But the kicker that makes your efforts totally worthless is the
fact that all aspects that did suggest a warmer world during the
20th century must level off, which is what I think has happened,
statistical errors, equipment and method changes, and even any
conscious or subconscious cheating by Hansen or anybody absolutely
must level off, the data will win out.

But I don't like cold weather, and I see no reason for man
to suffer in order to save the polar bear, it would not make me
unhappy if the whole world had the climate of Hawaii, so if that
makes me a bad boy, sorry.

The polar bear will probably survive in a higher percentage
than man, if only man would stop using high power rifles to kill them,
and if people have been depending on melting ice for the water supply,
they were kidding themselves, they need to do whatever necessary to
get to a more dependable source.

The Global Warming fad has to be the most stupid thing ever
thought up, and the real scientists that have been suckered in or
coerced into subscribing to such an imprecise and flawed program
will be very upset with themselves when they see the light.

Without UHI, you have nothing, temperature ranges within even
20 degrees of "normal" _ARE_ "typical".


I feel for you, but I can't reach you. I would expect when
you see the light you will be a vocal opponent of the whole GW mess.

But just my opinion.

Thanks for giving me the microphone, "John M.",
who wrote
in message
...
that he is a pinko green John the English pauper just like,
or league with his bro Scott Nudds aka V-for-Vendicar.

On May 15, 8:16 pm, "hanson" wrote:
Gauche & ........
snip of pointless trolling

John wrote:
I used to think on reading some of your posts elsewhere, that you
actually knew a thing or two, ahaha. Was I wrong?
So why not give us the benefit of your wisdom (if I'm right on that
score) rather than keep up this pointless, valueless and (at worst)
mindless tirade about political views which differ somewhat,
but not a lot, from yours.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... John, I don't know whether you were wrong or not,
or even whether you are a GLOBAL COOLING DENIALIST like
VD Scotty, but here is what you obviouoisly like to hear again,
since we are staring into the face of an encore of the Maunder
Minimum, a little Ice Age:

"V-for-Vendicar" wrote in message
...
about the impressions that His world makes on VD Scotty himself.

"James" wrote in message
...
VD-Scotty You have just confirmed you are full of ****.

hanson wrote:
Gauche & loud communist, US-expatriate & pauper Scott Nudds
aka "VD-for-Vendicar"
aka VD-Scotty, the GLOBAL COOLING DENIALIST, with his red
pants frozen in snow and ice...ahaha... who had bragged that he
**never** drove & much less ever owned an automobile, Scuttled
his Nutts, which is why the facts according to edicts of his Green
Bible are posted here for his benefit:

Here is the COOLING. Here are the global average temperatures
since 1958. --- "o" = trend line. --- Look at all those "o"'s lined up
there. The global temperature trend is *down*, **down**, DOWN!
And most recently the rate of DE-crease is about 2'C per century.

2007 14.08 *************o***************
2006 14.06 **************o************
2005 13.99 ***************o******
2004 14.08 ****************o************
2003 14.04 *****************o********
2002 14.08 ******************o**********
2001 13.79 ********========o
2000 13.89 ****************====o
1999 13.97 ***********************o
1998 14.00 ************************o*
1997 13.96 ********************===o
1996 14.08 **************************o*****
1995 14.03 ***************************o
1994 13.90 **************=========o
1993 14.00 ************************===o
1992 14.14 ******************************o******
1991 13.92 *****************==========o
1990 13.95 *******************=========o
1989 13.84 ************==============o
1988 14.13 *********************************o*
1987 14.02 ************************======o
1986 14.09 *****************************===o
1985 14.18 *********************************o**
1984 14.27 **********************************o****
1983 14.05 ************************========o
1982 14.26 **************************************o**
1981 14.09 *****************************======o
1980 14.06 ***************************========o
1979 14.13 *******************************======o
1978 14.27 ***************************************o**
1977 14.31 ****************************************o**
1976 14.19 **********************************=====o
1975 14.38 ******************************************o***
1974 14.35 ********************************************o**
1973 14.12 ***************************============o
1972 14.14 *****************************===========o
1971 14.24 ***************************************=====o
1970 14.38 ***********************************************o** *
1969 14.30 *******************************************===o
1968 14.40 ************************************************o* *
1967 14.57 *************************************************o ...
1966 14.33 *********************************************===o
1965 14.33 ********************************************====o
1964 14.48 ************************************************** *o...
1963 14.56 ************************************************** **o...
1962 14.55 ************************************************** ***o...
1961 14.49 ************************************************** ****o...
1960 14.62 ************************************************** *****o...
1959 14.54 ************************************************** ******o...
1958 14.57 ************************************************** *******o...
Correlation Coefficient -.8529209 --
Above is VD-Scotty's table which has been corrected for his
benefit because his green Bible says:

Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank

The most intriguing fact, AFAIAC, is that EVERYBODY has become
a convert to the MO of the Green Bible by now... for their own agenda,
from the far Left to the far Right, from Lenders to Creditors,
from Union bosses to Wallstreet CEO, from Jews to Muslims,
from secular Heads of State to the Pope, and most ominous of all this:
from Elementary School pupils to their Teachers... WORLDWIDE!...

Moral of the Story:.. EVERYBODY is correct!... in their own mind!
Thanks for the laughs!.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson


PS:
More fun in VD-Scotty's world, where he Scuttles his Nutts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0d934ebcc7b3fd1f
wherein she says: --- Dear Vendicar ----,
.... you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off and then the
other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts". So, See,
Short-dick/Quick-cumers like you are not best sellers in the adult
movie biz. I hope you'll understand that. Biz is biz. I'm sorry, dear.
With love, --- Naomi Goldstein-Goldman