Liberal Forum

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:02 pm

Already addressed.

Yes...and dismissed..

You have misrepresented evidence, offered a discredited bit of administration propaganda...and declined to answer the questions which would have established those facts immediately...


 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm

Looks like legends to me.  Plus, how can you say "consistently decline to do that" when that is a repost of comment from 2019?  Lying again or not reading a post before answering?

No, dwarf....posting the text of the legends is necessary to stop you from asserting that the maps are the same...

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:09 pm

Yes...and dismissed..

You have misrepresented evidence, offered a discredited bit of administration propaganda...and declined to answer the questions which would have established those facts immediately...

You haven't offered any evidence.  I was correct.  Do like a man does and establish those "facts" that show I was wrong.  

My comment that has had your panties in a snit going on two years stands.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:10 pm

No, dwarf....posting the text of the legends is necessary to stop you from asserting that the maps are the same...

Well, then repost them, with my comments. The legends are posted.  Make your case. 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:11 pm

You haven't offered any evidence.  I was correct.  Do like a man does and establish those "facts" that show I was wrong.  

My comment that has had your panties in a snit going on two years stands.

 

You haven't offered any evidence.

I show that you are lying, and you take 3 days off...
 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:56 am

Huey » 06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2019, 11:03 am

I did answer it moron. Try reading the thread. You would have a link to this:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/arc ... AMP%20HTML

Which contained this you lazy ****. Why does everything have to be double posted for assholes like you?

@Blackvegetable  

My, the path looks exactly the same.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:10 pm

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:01 pm

Looks like legends to me.  Plus, how can you say "consistently decline to do that" when that is a repost of comment from 2019?  Lying again or not reading a post before answering?

No, dwarf....posting the text of the legends is necessary to stop you from asserting that the maps are the same...

 

Scrawny, I did not say the maps were the same as in the same thing.  I said the PATH's look the same.  Get it right you non reading Smelling Data Geek.  The map representing the likely arrival of tropical force winds is based on the probable path of the hurricane, Dum Dum.  

So "establish" these facts you think you have.  Without questions.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:12 pm

Well, then repost them, with my comments. The legends are posted.  Make your case.

Your evidence

Your assertion.

My case is made..

You lost...again.
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:13 pm

I show that you are lying, and you take 3 days off...

State what you think I am lying about.  Be specific with no questions.  Be very specific. 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:15 pm

Scrawny, I did not say the maps were the same as in the same thing.  I said the PATH's look the same.  Get it right you non reading Smelling Data Geek.  The map representing the likely arrival of tropical force winds is based on the probable path of the hurricane, Dum Dum.  

So "establish" these facts you think you have.  Without questions.

Scrawny, I did not say the maps were the same as in the same thing

What it is doesn't matter.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:15 pm

Your evidence

Your assertion.

My case is made..

You lost...again.

You "case" is like a little league team winning by forfeit.  The other team did not show up.  You have presented no case.  You did not show up.  

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:16 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:16 pm

State what you think I am lying about.  Be specific with no questions.  Be very specific.

 

You haven't offered any evidence

Are these your words, zerointegrity dwarf?

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:17 pm

What it is doesn't matter.

LMAO!  Make your case.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:18 pm

Are these your words, zerointegrity dwarf?

State what you think I am lying about.  Be specific with no questions.  Be very specific.

You can't even state what you claim I am lying about.  You want me to take three days off?  What is in it for me?  Remember, you have no integrity when it comes to challenges.  

 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm

State what you think I am lying about.  Be specific with no questions.  Be very specific.

You can't even state what you claim I am lying about.  You want me to take three days off?  What is in it for me?  Remember, you have no integrity when it comes to challenges.

I posted your lie, verbatim.



 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:21 pm

I posted your lie, verbatim.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about what we have been arguing about, (where you are losing bigly) for the past two days.

No, I am not going to take three days off for that.  

Now state your case.  Or continue to be curb stomped.  

 

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:24 pm

Sorry, I thought you were talking about what we have been arguing about, (where you are losing bigly) for the past two days.

No, I am not going to take three days off for that.  

Now state your case.  Or continue to be curb stomped.

But you acknowledge it's a lie, right?

Now state your case.  Or continue to be curb stomped.

Dwarf, 

When you don't open by demanding your special rules, you may LOOK at the word "curbstomp".

Watch..


Did you post the same NOAA statement,

you were told was **** when floated


was subsequently CONFIRMED as ****


as "evidence" that you are "correct"?


#readhissig

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:36 pm

But you acknowledge it's a lie, right?

Dwarf, 

When you don't open by demanding your special rules, you may LOOK at the word "curbstomp".

Watch..

Did you post the same NOAA statement,

you were told was **** when floated

was subsequently CONFIRMED as ****

as "evidence" that you are "correct"?

#readhissig

There is no **** in the comment from Sept 2019 that has your panties in a snit.

There was a probability track that showed where the storm was thought to be going a week out.  I posted it.

There was a Most likely arrival time of Tropical Storm Winds map that mirrored the probable track map a week out.

Al was included.  So I told no lie.  Posted nothing wrong.  I will repost the quote again.   

Huey » 05 Sep 2019, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019, 6:40 pm

[url=https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1265384#p1265384 » wrote:Blackvegetable»05Sep20196:27pm[/url]]

[url=https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1265284#p1265284 » wrote:Huey»05Sep201912:20pm[/url]]

Sorry, the track on the map has the storm heading over lake Okeechobee towards the northwest and the gulf. That track if it continued place alabama on the outer bands or what was at the time a CAT 5 hurricane. So it is correct that alabama at the time of that track was in the cone to be hit.

You wanna discuss stupid? Look in the mirror and see your face.

Boldly Defining something you are vaguely describing?

There was no such "early track" from any official weather service.

We know where The Grifter got it....now he's just Dwarfsplainin'.

So now you lie when busted. There certainly was. Just stop.

From aug 30:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.montgo ... 2164905001

, from the 29th ya **** moron:



Link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orland ... P%2520HTML

LMMFAO!! You see the track and the green portion. **** you.

The image from noaa says you are a lying moron. JUST AS I SAID. LMMFAO!!!!!

Huey » 05 Sep 2019, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Sep 2019, 12:20 pm

[url=https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1265282#p1265282 » wrote:Blackvegetable»05Sep201912:18pm[/url]]

[url=https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1265276#p1265276 » wrote:Huey»05Sep201912:13pm[/url]]

The one in the OP, without the sharpie.

You should read the thread before starting **** with others.

What map would you use to show a storm's path up the Atlantic coast of Florida that did NOT show Alabama to the northwest?

Face of Stupid.

Sorry, the track on the map has the storm heading over lake Okeechobee towards the northwest and the gulf. That track if it continued place alabama on the outer bands or what was at the time a CAT 5 hurricane. So it is correct that alabama at the time of that track was in the cone to be hit.

You wanna discuss stupid? Look in the mirror and see your face.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:36 pm

But you acknowledge it's a lie, right?

Dwarf, 

When you don't open by demanding your special rules, you may LOOK at the word "curbstomp".

Watch..

Did you post the same NOAA statement,

you were told was **** when floated

was subsequently CONFIRMED as ****

as "evidence" that you are "correct"?

#readhissig

There is nothing false in this statement:

Sorry, the track on the map has the storm heading over lake Okeechobee towards the northwest and the gulf. That track if it continued place alabama on the outer bands or what was at the time a CAT 5 hurricane. So it is correct that alabama at the time of that track was in the cone to be hit.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 1:45 pm

There is nothing false in this statement:

Sorry, the track on the map has the storm heading over lake Okeechobee towards the northwest and the gulf. That track if it continued place alabama on the outer bands or what was at the time a CAT 5 hurricane. So it is correct that alabama at the time of that track was in the cone to be hit.

That track if it continued place alabama on the outer bands or what was at the time a CAT 5 hurricane.

No evidence to that effect...you posted a map showing a 5% probability that a small part of Alabama would see winds from 0-35 categorized as "tropical storm force"..

So it is correct that alabama at the time of that track was in the cone to be hit.

no...that remains a lie..


You may now answer the question.