graham wrote:
> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
> "common knowledge" or a "truism".

So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
(for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
2.5 O2.

Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
in at least several other changes?

On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> graham wrote:
>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>
> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
> 2.5 O2.
>
> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
> in at least several other changes?
>
>
>
So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
>>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
>>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
>>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>>
>> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
>> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
>> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
>> 2.5 O2.
>>
>> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
>> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
>> in at least several other changes?
>>
>>
>>
>So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
that they're very right wing.

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-5, Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
> >On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >> graham wrote:
> >>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
> >>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious to
> >>> say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print something
> >>> as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it falsely becomes
> >>> "common knowledge" or a "truism".
> >>
> >> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
> >> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
> >> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
> >> 2.5 O2.
> >>
> >> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
> >> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
> >> in at least several other changes?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Funny how that correlation seems to hold. Not causal at all.

John Kuthe...

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:38:44 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:29:15 PM UTC-5, Druce wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 17:15:52 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>> >On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2 carbon
>> >> (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water molecule
>> >> actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air, and add about
>> >> 2.5 O2.
>> >>
>> >> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their left-wing
>> >> superior grasp of science, think they can do that without balancing it
>> >> in at least several other changes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Funny how that correlation seems to hold. Not causal at all.

I think you only need a small brain to come up with very right wing
ideas. "Get rid of foreigners, my country's the best in the universe,
God loves my country, I don't wanna pay taxes, disgruntle,
disgruntle." You can probably generate those thoughts on 2 brain
cells.

Druce wrote:
>
> I think you only need a small brain to come up with very right wing
> ideas. "Get rid of foreigners, my country's the best in the universe,
> God loves my country, I don't wanna pay taxes, disgruntle,
> disgruntle." You can probably generate those thoughts on 2 brain
> cells.

We had open immigration until it ended in the _progressive_ era, because
you can't have open immigration and public assistance at the same time.
It takes 2 brain cells to misunderstand that by itself. You must need a
dozen more to misunderstand the rest.

Druce wrote:
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
but you seem not to have thought of that.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.

If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.

Druce wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>> Druce wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>> that they're very right wing.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.

Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern professors
and students are to the left of Breznev.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:35:50 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 22:20:48 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Druce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>>> that they're very right wing.
>>>
>>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>
>> If by very left-wing you mean communist, then I agree.
>
>Most of today's communists refuse to admit they are. Modern professors
>and students are to the left of Breznev.

You'd probably call Bernie Sanders a communist, right?

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news
Druce wrote:
>
> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
> that they're very right wing.

Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
but you seem not to have thought of that.


===

Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.

"Druce" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

But I said that "not all" brainy people are left-wing, so that leaves
room for you to be brainy yet right-wing.

==

Hmmm.. But have you noticed, only left wingers constantly go on and on
about being left wing and deriding those they see as right wing? Yes, you
do it often too. I don't class myself as a right-winger as it is not a
religion to me as it seems to be for most left wingers. I choose what I
want and would like and I don't constantly complain about others' opinions.
Yes I think some right wingers have scary opinions, but some left wingers do
too. I am not fixated on either view. I have my personal opinion and if you
or anyone else doesn't like that, OK but it is MY Right to have MY Own
Opinion!!!

Now, as I have said before, this is not the right place to shout about your
politics. I don't care what yours are and I would prefer you not to care
about mine. Mine are none of your business. I do not keep shouting about
my preferences and I would prefer you don't shout about yours to me either
!!

Ok, I am now done.

So, what are you cooking?




O.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:15:07 +0100, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
>Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
>Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
>===
>
>Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

We can't all be studying every word in Rebel ! Your friend Nigel
Farage always opines he knows everything!

Ophelia wrote:
> "Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
> Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
> ===
>
> Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

They don't seem to know that there are different kinds of intelligence.
They focus on IQ as the only kind when comparing college professors to
rednecks, but when the stats show people of one race has a higher IQ
than another, then IQ doesn't matter.

And since they couldn't argue with my point, they don't know about
stoichiometrics either.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:56:29 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Ophelia wrote:
>> "Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >>
>> Druce wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>> that they're very right wing.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
>
>They don't seem to know that there are different kinds of intelligence.
>They focus on IQ as the only kind when comparing college professors to
>rednecks, but when the stats show people of one race has a higher IQ
>than another, then IQ doesn't matter.
>
>And since they couldn't argue with my point, they don't know about
>stoichiometrics either.

lol

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news
Ophelia wrote:
> "Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >
> Druce wrote:
>>
>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>> that they're very right wing.
>
> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>
>
> ===
>
> Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!

They don't seem to know that there are different kinds of intelligence.
They focus on IQ as the only kind when comparing college professors to
rednecks, but when the stats show people of one race has a higher IQ
than another, then IQ doesn't matter.

And since they couldn't argue with my point, they don't know about
stoichiometrics either.

===

Well I must admit, I have never even heard of stoichiometrics

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> "Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message news >>
>> Druce wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all, but the more intelligent people are, the smaller the chance
>>> that they're very right wing.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean they aren't also less likely to be very left-wing,
>> but you seem not to have thought of that.
>>
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Have you noticed, the left wingers know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING!!!
>
> They don't seem to know that there are different kinds of intelligence.
> They focus on IQ as the only kind when comparing college professors to
> rednecks, but when the stats show people of one race has a higher IQ
> than another, then IQ doesn't matter.
>
> And since they couldn't argue with my point, they don't know about
> stoichiometrics either.
>
>
>
I was in a restaurant in Washington DC a few years back.

I ordered stoichiometric stew. When they brought the dish, I could not
figure out how to transform it into something I could eat. The waiter
had a high IQ, but even this august servant could not help.

They called on all the senators and representatives on the hill, but
none of them were any help. Some were negros, some white, and some
asian, but none understood this stoichiometric stew.

graham wrote:
> On 2018-09-05 3:36 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>>> I've read that it takes a gallon of water to produce ONE almond in
>>> California but many of the sources for such statistics are dubious
>>> to say the least. All it takes is one quackie magazine to print
>>> something as fact and then it gets quoted so many times that it
>>> falsely becomes "common knowledge" or a "truism".
>>
>> So what if it uses water? That means the 2H combine with about 2
>> carbon (for an average hydrocarbon I think) so for every water
>> molecule actually used (not run-off) we take 2 CO2 out of the air,
>> and add about 2.5 O2.
>>
>> Do people who want to remove CO2 from the air, with all their
>> left-wing superior grasp of science, think they can do that without
>> balancing it in at least several other changes?
>>
>>
>>
> So brainy people are all left-wing. I pity you!

Non sequitur.

In fact your logic is inverted.