Liberal Forum

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 3:54 pm

Better question.  Because this is about what I said.  Where did I post that?

Because this is about what I said.

you've said many things..

But you can't stop denying the evidence in front of your eyes..

​​​​​​now explain why you posted the bogus NOAA after you had been informed it was false?

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 4:20 pm

you've said many things..

But you can't stop denying the evidence in front of your eyes..

​​​​​​now explain why you posted the bogus NOAA after you had been informed it was false?

 Better question.  Why did NOAA post it on its website and have not taken it down?   Cause the maps I showed you are not bogus, the outer bands were tracking towards AL, and the wind chart showed a 5-20 percent probability of tropical storm winds for the southeast portion of AL.  And yet you are still lying about what I said.

All as I posted in that day.  You can not refute that on the 29th and 30th of Aug 2020 those maps were posted.

You lose.   Next time you bring up Dorian I will bump this to show what a liar you are.

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 4:26 pm

 Better question.  Why did NOAA post it on its website and have not taken it down?   Cause the maps I showed you are not bogus, the outer bands were tracking towards AL, and the wind chart showed a 5-20 percent probability of tropical storm winds for the southeast portion of AL.  And yet you are still lying about what I said.

All as I posted in that day.  You can not refute that on the 29th and 30th of Aug 2020 those maps were posted.

You lose.   Next time you bring up Dorian I will bump this to show what a liar you are.

Better question.  Why did NOAA post it on its website and have not taken it down?   

Because it remains an official release.

Now answer the question.

Cause the maps I showed you are not bogus, the outer bands were tracking towards AL, and the wind chart showed a 5-20 percent probability of tropical storm winds for the southeast portion of AL.  

Which is NOT a hurricane track.

And yet you are still lying about what I said.

Post my lie.

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 11:41 am

Trump wrongly tweeted on Sept. 1 that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated," though the state was not within the National Hurricane Center's "cone of uncertainty" - the zone most likely to be affected. The National Weather Service forecast office in Birmingham, responding to an influx of calls from worried residents in the wake of the president's tweet, issued a tweet of its own saying Dorian would not affect Alabama.
​​​​​
 At the time, the NWS's forecast guidance showed only a very small risk (about 5 percent) of tropical-storm-force winds for a small portion of Alabama.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.syracu ... utType=amp

A map showing probability of "tropical- storm-force winds" is not a Hurricane track map..

Which is why you don't see it on Grifty's desk.

Is this sinking in?

Right there you admitted I was correct.  

Blackvegetable » 14 Jun 2021, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 4:46 pm

Because it remains an official release.

Now answer the question.

Which is NOT a hurricane track.

Post my lie.

I said outer bands of the storm.

I also posted the storm track as well as the wind probability, retard.


 You are busted.  My comments are correct. I’ll see tomorrow to what other lies you are telling about comments.

Your ow words prove I was righ!

Huey » 14 Jun 2021, 4:57 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2021, 4:57 pm

I said outer bands of the storm.

I also posted the storm track as well as the wind probability, retard.

 You are busted.  My comments are correct. I’ll see tomorrow to what other lies you are telling about comments.

Your ow words prove I was righ!

Another battle fought against yourself..

How about answering the question now?
 

Huey » 04 Sep 2019, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2019, 4:15 pm

This is a joke, right?

PS. Remember the last time you guys ranted about the AL comment I told you the original tracks had it crossing FL and heading to the Gulf. In a northwest direction? Look at the map and see where AL is. Seems to me you just down your own argument.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:28 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:25 pm

There is nothing to answer.  I posted my comments that sent you into meltdown mode.  The original tracks had it crossing Florida as I said and heading in a Northwest direction.  As far as actually threatening AL, nope.  

But at the time those maps were created, something like a week out, the storm was heading in a direction that would have had effects on AL.

Now kindly state, in narrative form, what the **** you are hounding me about.

Dwarf,


This is about your inability to accept objective evidence before your eyes..


Watch


Did Dorian threaten Alabama?


Is the map defaced with a Sharpie like object?
 

 

Already answered number 1.

That was discussed on this thread.  I posted actual maps from NOAA.  If you wish to discuss my comments concerning the Sharpie marks you may discuss it here.  

Since you know very little about it this is how a man does it.  

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm

Already answered number 1.

That was discussed on this thread.  I posted actual maps from NOAA.  If you wish to discuss my comments concerning the Sharpie marks you may discuss it here.  

Since you know very little about it this is how a man does it.

dwarf,

The answer to the first question is


No


The answer to the second is


Yes.




Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that?

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:41 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm

Already answered number 1.

That was discussed on this thread.  I posted actual maps from NOAA.  If you wish to discuss my comments concerning the Sharpie marks you may discuss it here.  

Since you know very little about it this is how a man does it.

dwarf,

The answer to the first question is


No


The answer to the second is


Yes.




Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that?

 

Whether it was altered or not has nothing to do with the NOAA maps I used.  

I already answered the first question.

The second has nothing to do with what I posted.  I have never denied it wasn't.  But on this thread I used NOAA maps off the website.  Doesn't change the fact that the track a week out had the storm crossing Florida and heading northwest which would have had an impact on GA and AL.

Acknowledge that and we may continue.  Your add on question asked AFTER the  the first question will be addressed at that point. 
 

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm

Whether it was altered or not has nothing to do with the NOAA maps I used.  

I already answered the first question.

The second has nothing to do with what I posted.  I have never denied it wasn't.  But on this thread I used NOAA maps off the website.  Doesn't change the fact that the track a week out had the storm crossing Florida and heading northwest which would have had an impact on GA and AL.

Acknowledge that and we may continue.  Your add on question asked AFTER the  the first question will be addressed at that point.

No, Dwarf.

Your position on that issue was unambiguous...irrelevant for current purposes, and indisputably a diversion premised on a cherry picked comment taken entirely out of context.

I'm only asking what we can clearly see...the implications are obvious.

Your denial is a meme.

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm

Whether it was altered or not has nothing to do with the NOAA maps I used.  

I already answered the first question.

The second has nothing to do with what I posted.  I have never denied it wasn't.  But on this thread I used NOAA maps off the website.  Doesn't change the fact that the track a week out had the storm crossing Florida and heading northwest which would have had an impact on GA and AL.

Acknowledge that and we may continue.  Your add on question asked AFTER the  the first question will be addressed at that point.

 

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 2:07 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:45 pm

Whether it was altered or not has nothing to do with the NOAA maps I used.  

I already answered the first question.

The second has nothing to do with what I posted.  I have never denied it wasn't.  But on this thread I used NOAA maps off the website.  Doesn't change the fact that the track a week out had the storm crossing Florida and heading northwest which would have had an impact on GA and AL.

Acknowledge that and we may continue.  Your add on question asked AFTER the  the first question will be addressed at that point.

 

 

So?  

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 2:14 pm

So?

Did Dorian threaten Alabama?

Is that map defaced by a Sharpie like thing?


Please note, 37X, the answers to BOTH questions are ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING you have EVER said, drank or abused.

Acknowledge that you understand this fact.
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 2:57 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 2:57 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 2:14 pm

So?

Did Dorian threaten Alabama?

Is that map defaced by a Sharpie like thing?


Please note, 37X, the answers to BOTH questions are ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING you have EVER said, drank or abused.

Acknowledge that you understand this fact.
 

 

 

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:32 pm

Huey » 04 Sep 2019, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2019, 4:15 pm

This is a joke, right?

PS. Remember the last time you guys ranted about the AL comment I told you the original tracks had it crossing FL and heading to the Gulf. In a northwest direction? Look at the map and see where AL is. Seems to me you just down your own argument.


 

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:28 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 1:25 pm

There is nothing to answer.  I posted my comments that sent you into meltdown mode.  The original tracks had it crossing Florida as I said and heading in a Northwest direction.  As far as actually threatening AL, nope.  

But at the time those maps were created, something like a week out, the storm was heading in a direction that would have had effects on AL.

Now kindly state, in narrative form, what the **** you are hounding me about.

Dwarf,


This is about your inability to accept objective evidence before your eyes..


Watch


Did Dorian threaten Alabama?


Is the map defaced with a Sharpie like object?
 


 

Already answered number 1.

That was discussed on this thread.  I posted actual maps from NOAA.  If you wish to discuss my comments concerning the Sharpie marks you may discuss it here.  

Since you know very little about it this is how a man does it.  

 

Question 1 has already been answered as you can see. 

Questioin 2.  Duh.  Has nothing to do with my point.

Now it is your turn.  First, before asking anymore diversionary or stupid questions STIPULATE that from here on out you will actually read a post before replying.  Second, Acknowledge both questions are answered.  And Three, make a case in narrative form.

If you can't do those three things do not bother to ask me for any stipulations, any acknowledgement or any more questions.  
Ball in your court.  This will go much faster if you actually make a point.  

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:04 pm

Question 1 has already been answered as you can see. 

Questioin 2.  Duh.  Has nothing to do with my point.

Now it is your turn.  First, before asking anymore diversionary or stupid questions STIPULATE that from here on out you will actually read a post before replying.  Second, Acknowledge both questions are answered.  And Three, make a case in narrative form.

If you can't do those three things do not bother to ask me for any stipulations, any acknowledgement or any more questions.  
Ball in your court.  This will go much faster if you actually make a point.

Did you read this?

Do you understand it?


Please note, 37X, the answers to BOTH questions are ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING you have EVER said, drank or abused.

Acknowledge that you understand this fact.

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:11 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 3:04 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:04 pm

Question 1 has already been answered as you can see. 

Questioin 2.  Duh.  Has nothing to do with my point.

Now it is your turn.  First, before asking anymore diversionary or stupid questions STIPULATE that from here on out you will actually read a post before replying.  Second, Acknowledge both questions are answered.  And Three, make a case in narrative form.

If you can't do those three things do not bother to ask me for any stipulations, any acknowledgement or any more questions.  
Ball in your court.  This will go much faster if you actually make a point.

Did you read this?

Do you understand it?


Please note, 37X, the answers to BOTH questions are ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT of ANYTHING you have EVER said, drank or abused.

Acknowledge that you understand this fact.

 

Sorry, you have three things you have to do before I acknowledge and respond to anymore diversion questions.  If you can not do the same things you demand of others you are not worth my time. Do it or STFU.  Make a case.

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 3:16 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:16 pm

Sorry, you have three things you have to do before I acknowledge and respond to anymore diversion questions.  If you can not do the same things you demand of others you are not worth my time. Do it or STFU.  Make a case.

I am..

if the crap you are yammering about is "entirely independent" of the objective facts, then your yammering about it is BY DEFINITION a "diversion".

Do you understand this?

Understanding it is entirely independent of accepting it, of course..
 
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:27 pm

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 3:16 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:16 pm

Sorry, you have three things you have to do before I acknowledge and respond to anymore diversion questions.  If you can not do the same things you demand of others you are not worth my time. Do it or STFU.  Make a case.

I am..

if the crap you are yammering about is "entirely independent" of the objective facts, then your yammering about it is BY DEFINITION a "diversion".

Do you understand this?

Understanding it is entirely independent of accepting it, of course..
 
 

 

You can not whine about objective facts when you have not posted any objective facts AND a narrative that explains how these alleged objective facts fit your case.

Acknowledge your questions were answered and acknowledge you refuse to not only make a case but also agree to the stipulations.  I'll check later to see if you have completed your tasks.  

 

Huey » 15 Oct 2021, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:42 pm

You can not whine about objective facts when you have not posted any objective facts AND a narrative that explains how these alleged objective facts fit your case.

Acknowledge your questions were answered and acknowledge you refuse to not only make a case but also agree to the stipulations.  I'll check later to see if you have completed your tasks.

 

You can not whine about objective facts when you have not posted any objective facts AND a narrative that explains how these alleged objective facts fit your case.

**** idiot.


Fact


 
Have I, or have I not explained its unambiguous message?


#readhissig

Blackvegetable » 15 Oct 2021, 3:56 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Oct 2021, 3:56 pm

**** idiot.

Fact


 
Have I, or have I not explained its unambiguous message?

#readhissig

Make you case as it pertains to my words, cryptic moron.