Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Mr X <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Aug 2006 08:54:02 -0500
In article <mnv8d2dg8ee05s8h21ocs9b296em2llsv8@xxxxxxx>, Cynic
<cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:06:31 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
Sadly the evidence is beginning to stack up against the IPCC being any
better than the PCA.
You mean because they are not coming up with the conclusions that you
personally think they should? (Despite them being in possession of all
available evidence and you being in possession of none?)
No, because they are not coming to the conclusions that any sensible
person would come to with the evidence that is known. To excuse
everything by saying, "They must have had compelling evidence that has
not been made public," is extremely dishonest.
As I have said many times, Kev *is* a very dishonest person.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who believes that.
--
Mr X
.
- References:
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Harry the Horse
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: mike friend
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Richard Miller
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Cynic
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Prev by Date: Re: BOGOF
- Next by Date: Re: All parking tickets invalid without two dates?
- Previous by thread: Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Next by thread: Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|