| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: However, your claim that I have never made $60.00 in any year is Patently ridiculous. This ridiculous claim, casts extreme amounts of doubt on your remaining specific denials. Thanks for discrediting yourself so thoroughly, sockpuppet. You are lying mountain of excrement. He typed "60.000" instead of "60,000", and you know what he meant to say. And, he never said "$60.00". Plus, apparently Arnold doesn't know that the phrase 60.000 dollars *can* be used to represent $60,000. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
... No, an acre-foot is 1233.5 cubic meters, or about 325,520 gallons. I used 1AF=360,000 gallons as stated on this website: http://www.pacificresearch.org However, since you posted a different number I double checked and you are correct (well, pretty close). One acre foot is a volume one foot deep covering an area of one acre. One acre (43,560 square feet) times 1' = 43,560 cubic feet or 1233.482 cubic meters. In the US, one liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches. So, 43560*12^3/231 =325,851 US liquid gallons. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorodo River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Arny said
You can't specifically deny one thing that I've said, sockpuppet. I said I specifically deny that I am suing you for 10,000 dollars. I specifically deny that you have ever made over 60.000 dollars in any year.I specifically deny that i am socially and economically inferior to you. Arny said OK, and you can specifically deny that you exist. Bad choice of words on my part. Actually I understood what you meant. It is a fact that I am not suing you for 10,000 dollars. You of all people should know this. You can't even get simple facts right. I am speculating on the economic differences between us just as you are. The difference is simple though. You have said enough to show your hand. You know nothing about my economic status. Social superiority is highly subjective. Arny said However, your claim that I have never made $60.00 in any year is Patently ridiculous. This ridiculous claim, casts extreme amounts of doubt on your remaining specific denials. Thanks for discrediting yourself so thoroughly, sockpuppe I didn't claim "60.00" I claimed 60.000 which is also an obvious error. I was meaning to say 80,000 which would have been in reference to your comment about people who have worked for you. But feel free to prove you have ever made more than 60,000 a year. Only an idiot gets into these kinds of ****ing contests knowing he doesn't have much of a proverbial dick to use. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
Art wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Yustabe said: Well, Arny lives in a tract neighborhood, but his house doesn't look anything like the other homes, which are neat yet modest brick pillboxes. More proof that Phillips was lying when he said that he stalked me in my neighborhood. The houses in my neighborhood are highly varied. They were built by individual builders over a period of about 30 years. Arny's house is different because it was there before the others were built (it is also the first house right off of one of the busiest streets in the Detroit area, Mack Ave.). It has a weird, almost patched together look, and although it is bigger than the surrounding tract homes, it looks cheaper. And the yard is unkempt. More proof that Phillips was lying when he said that he stalked me in my neighborhood. Mack Avenue is a wide higher-end residential boulevard with tastefully landscaped park-like, tree-shaded medians and antique-style light fixtures. It has only modest traffic flow at the point where I live because all through traffic runs about a mile East on I-94, which has numerous exits in the area. My house is sheltered from Mack Avenue by a tight row of commercial buildings including a Caribou Coffee across the street I live on and a Breadsmith on my side of the road. The allegedly unkempt yard is in fact carefully manicured. It appears that Phillips is actually telling us about how crappy it is to be sockpuppet wheel. He lives right next to Victory Boulevard, which is a very busy road, and has a narrow, industrial-strength paved median. There's no shelter, the residential lots back right up to the noisy traffic that runs day and night. The high ambient noise level 24 hours a day probably explains how sockpuppet wheel can tolerate all the tics and pops from his vinyl-only hissy tubism-worship retro-stereo. I have been to Scott's house. The neighborhood is very quiet. Needless to say, Middius, Phillips, Richman, and Yustabe won't disclose exactly where they live. The truth probably hurts a lot. It's none of your business. You are dying to know, have fun figuring it out for yourself. Really, it should.t be too hard. You're correct. It's none of his business. It never surprises me when conspiracy theory advocate Kfrueger tries to list a bunch of names together, I suppose, to correlate with his wacky "clique" ideation about people who just happen to agree in certain respects. Arny's house is not the ****box we were all expecting, but Scott Wheeler and I, who both own 50s-style tract homes in the San Fernando Valley, could each sell our homes and buy two of Arny's. I'm not so sure about that. Even with the poor housing value situation in Southern California, the kind of shoebox that sockpuppet wheel seems to live in can't be worth much more than about $300,000. The bloated house prices in southern California are legendary. The fact that Californians struggle with tremendously burdensome debt loads while living in tiny cardboard shoeboxes is typical of how depressed their general standard of living is. Hence many of them like Phillips literally live on hamburgers. Money is worth much less when you have to spend so much of it maintaining a mediocre or worse standard of living. HEHEHEHE, when they get to be your age and retire, they will also have a small fortune in equity. In fact, my neighbor from two doors down just sold his house for $100,000 more than I paid for mine just last March, and I have an addition that he lacks. So that house sold for $101,000? LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. As anyone who knows anything about real estate will tell you, it's location, location, location. And Arny chooses to live in Michigan, which frankly I find to be a dreary ******** full of idiots. Just goes to show how Marc Phillips bases his judgments of individuals on regional prejudices. It's a kind of racist thinking that obviously permeates his very being. IME most Californians are far more humane and liberal in their attitudes. ...until thay have had the misfortune of coming across Arny Krueger. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Bruce J. Richman |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Rusty said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorodo River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. Boon |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorado River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you can't prove Rusty wrong like you promised you would when you started your attacks on him. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. Yup, the U.S. Federal government is always right on the spot without delay to eliminate any favoritism or injustice. Ask any native American! Let's say it all together... Phillips, what a maroon! |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Arny said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorado River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you can't prove Rusty wrong like you promised you would when you started your attacks on him. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. Yup, the U.S. Federal government is always right on the spot without delay to eliminate any favoritism or injustice. Ask any native American! Let's say it all together... Phillips, what a maroon! Here's the funny part. I asked you to provide me with proof that California steals water from other states. You failed to reply. Then this Rusty dude offered up an argument that really didn't address my point. I didn't attack him at all, I just asked him to prove your argument. He didn't. Now you pop in, once Rusty has offered some information, even though it's irrelevant, and now you pretend to know what you're talking about. ROTFLMAO! What a ****ing moron you are, Arny! Boon |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
... Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorodo River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Maybe so. But currently California in violation of the CRC which amounts to stealing. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. You obviously don't understand federal law. Hint, what venue is the legal action taking place? |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
... Then this Rusty dude offered up an argument that really didn't address my point. I didn't attack him at all, I just asked him to prove your argument. He didn't. Now you pop in, once Rusty has offered some information, even though it's irrelevant, and now you pretend to know what you're talking about. Why didn't it address your point? You asked for proof that California is stealing water from other states. I showed a legal document signed by California and 7 other states in which California is in gross violation. California is stealing water from other states. ROTFLMAO! What a ****ing moron you are, Arny! Boon Arny called you on your ignorance and it turns out he was right. Sounds like you're the ****ing moron. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorado River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you can't prove Rusty wrong like you promised you would when you started your attacks on him. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. Yup, the U.S. Federal government is always right on the spot without delay to eliminate any favoritism or injustice. Ask any native American! Let's say it all together... Phillips, what a maroon! Here's the funny part. I asked you to provide me with proof that California steals water from other states. I don't do command performances for sexual perverts like you, Phillips. You've got Scotty and Yustabe for that, right? You failed to reply. I declined to waste the time to tell you to get real, Phillips. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Rusty said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorodo River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Maybe so. But currently California in violation of the CRC which amounts to stealing. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. You obviously don't understand federal law. Hint, what venue is the legal action taking place? Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Boon |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Rusty said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Then this Rusty dude offered up an argument that really didn't address my point. I didn't attack him at all, I just asked him to prove your argument. He didn't. Now you pop in, once Rusty has offered some information, even though it's irrelevant, and now you pretend to know what you're talking about. Why didn't it address your point? You asked for proof that California is stealing water from other states. I showed a legal document signed by California and 7 other states in which California is in gross violation. You did? Where did you show me? California is stealing water from other states. Okay...prove it. ROTFLMAO! What a ****ing moron you are, Arny! Boon Arny called you on your ignorance and it turns out he was right. Sounds like you're the ****ing moron. Arny didn't call me on my ignorance. I made a statement about where California gets its water, and so far you've both disagreed with me while confirming what I said. Arny also said I attacked you. That would be a lie. I can't make this any simpler. What is wrong with my statement that California gets its water supply from the Feather River, the Colorado river, and rain? How is that incorrect? And tell me what states California is stealing water from? You see, the Colorado river borders Arizona and California. All other states are UPSTREAM. Arizona MAY have a case, but in reality, Arizona is a Johnny-Come-Lately who is whining that they didn't invest the money, time, resources, and aqueducts before California did. Now, if you want to discuss this further with me, please address the things I have said, rather than what you think I have said. Boon |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Arny said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Rusty said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty Boudreaux said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Southern California gets their water from primarily three sources...rain, the Feather River in Northern California, Colorado River, which forms the border between Arizona and California. So tell me...what other states are we stealing from again? Here's one example: California is stealing 300 billion gallons of Colorado River water annually. Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are preparing to legal action against California. In the upper basin Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico may join the legal fray. According to the 1922 Colorado River Compact, California is legally entitled to 4.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River water annually. Currently, California uses 5.2 million acre-feet. California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98 predicts by 2020 California will experience water shortages of 6 million acre-feet (about 2 trillion gallons or approximately equal to the yearly needs of 13 million four person families). Now go do some research and find out where CA gets the rest of it's water... First of all, nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. You only listed Arizona. There are 7 states, including Arizona, that have legal rights to the water California is consuming. Secondly, the real reason why Arizona wants to sue is because Phoenix is growing too rapidly, and they can't keep up with the water demand. So basically, Arizona has the same problem California had 50 years ago. Ditto for Nevada and Las Vegas, another city growing too rapidly for the environment around it. So? California is taking water that belongs to 7 other states. They shouldn't have to sue to force California to abide by the law. I just want someone to back up Arny's claim that we steal water from other states. Have you not heard of the 1922 Colorado River Compact which I cited above? California is exceeding their legal allocation by roughly 300 billion gallons per year. By law, that water belongs to 7 other states. And you know, when the lawsuits are all settled, and the finger-pointing is concluded, then you may or may not be able to say who is stealing what. Phillips, thanks for admitting that you can't prove Rusty wrong like you promised you would when you started your attacks on him. If one state was actually "stealing" from another state, the federal government would have stepped in already and made a decision. Yup, the U.S. Federal government is always right on the spot without delay to eliminate any favoritism or injustice. Ask any native American! Let's say it all together... Phillips, what a maroon! Here's the funny part. I asked you to provide me with proof that California steals water from other states. I don't do command performances for sexual perverts like you, Phillips. You've got Scotty and Yustabe for that, right? That would be a fantasy of yours, Internet geek. You failed to reply. I declined to waste the time to tell you to get real, Phillips. No, you lacked the intelligence to address what I said. Once Rusty got involved, you thought you could ride on his coattails. But you still have nothing to offer on the subject, do you. Boon |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: However, your claim that I have never made $60.00 in any year is Patently ridiculous. This ridiculous claim, casts extreme amounts of doubt on your remaining specific denials. Thanks for discrediting yourself so thoroughly, sockpuppet. You are lying mountain of excrement. He typed "60.000" instead of "60,000", and you know what he meant to say. And, he never said "$60.00". Plus, apparently Arnold doesn't know that the phrase 60.000 dollars *can* be used to represent $60,000. It depends where you are from. In europe and many other places, they use periods instead of commas in large numbers. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. Phillips, you're delusional. You don't have any original statements in this thread. Everything you've postured on this matter was in response to my claim that houses in California could lose appreciable value if there isn't enough drinking water for the people who might want to live in them. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and That would be a deception. Where California gets its water, such as it is, is well-known. You've admitted that much of it comes from a disputed source, namely the Colorado River. b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. That's a matter of the public record. The actual legal documents are online, but they are way too complex for you to understand, so I didn't cite them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. As usual Philips, you seem to be dead set on denying well-known facts. If you want to recant on your earlier positions, why don't you just say so directly? |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
... Rusty said: Why didn't it address your point? You asked for proof that California is stealing water from other states. I showed a legal document signed by California and 7 other states in which California is in gross violation. You did? Where did you show me? My very first post on this thread when I cited the Colorado River Compact. California is stealing water from other states. Okay...prove it. Colorado River Compact http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~cor...a/compact.html "The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921" Per this legal compact California is allocated 4.4 million acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River. Currently California consumes 5.2 million acre-feet from the Colorado River. The excess water directly amounts to stealing from the lower basin states (Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada) and indirectly amounts to stealing from the upper basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico). Arny didn't call me on my ignorance. I made a statement about where California gets its water, and so far you've both disagreed with me while confirming what I said. Arny also said I attacked you. That would be a lie. I can't make this any simpler. What is wrong with my statement that California gets its water supply from the Feather River, the Colorado river, and rain? How is that incorrect? It's an incomplete statement. For example, both local surface water sources and ground water sources are significantly higher than the Colorado River. Other local and federal imports also make up a significant share. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/exsum/esch2.html And tell me what states California is stealing water from? You see, the Colorado river borders Arizona and California. All other states are UPSTREAM. Arizona MAY have a case, but in reality, Arizona is a Johnny-Come-Lately who is whining that they didn't invest the money, time, resources, and aqueducts before California did. It doesn't matter where the states are located. There are 8 states which have legal rights to water from the Colorado River. Only California is exceeding its legal amount. The three other lower basin states (Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada) are directly impacted by California exceeding it's legal allotment. The four upper basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico) suffer since their water is used to cover the excess that California is stealiing. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:55:47 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: However, your claim that I have never made $60.00 in any year is Patently ridiculous. This ridiculous claim, casts extreme amounts of doubt on your remaining specific denials. Thanks for discrediting yourself so thoroughly, sockpuppet. You are lying mountain of excrement. He typed "60.000" instead of "60,000", and you know what he meant to say. And, he never said "$60.00". Plus, apparently Arnold doesn't know that the phrase 60.000 dollars *can* be used to represent $60,000. It depends where you are from. In europe and many other places, they use periods instead of commas in large numbers. Exactly. However, *nobody* represents $60.00 as $60.000. Nobody except for Arnold, of course. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Arny said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. Phillips, you're delusional. You don't have any original statements in this thread. Everything you've postured on this matter was in response to my claim that houses in California could lose appreciable value if there isn't enough drinking water for the people who might want to live in them. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and That would be a deception. Where California gets its water, such as it is, is well-known. You've admitted that much of it comes from a disputed source, namely the Colorado River. b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. That's a matter of the public record. The actual legal documents are online, but they are way too complex for you to understand, so I didn't cite them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. As usual Philips, you seem to be dead set on denying well-known facts. If you want to recant on your earlier positions, why don't you just say so directly? All that is rubbish. I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it. My question is the same to you as it is to Rusty. How does someone steal water off their own property, especially when the accusers are UPSTREAM? Take all the time you need to obfuscate. Boon |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Rusty said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Rusty said: Why didn't it address your point? You asked for proof that California is stealing water from other states. I showed a legal document signed by California and 7 other states in which California is in gross violation. You did? Where did you show me? My very first post on this thread when I cited the Colorado River Compact. California is stealing water from other states. Okay...prove it. Colorado River Compact http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~cor...a/compact.html "The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921" Per this legal compact California is allocated 4.4 million acre-feet of water annually from the Colorado River. Currently California consumes 5.2 million acre-feet from the Colorado River. The excess water directly amounts to stealing from the lower basin states (Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada) and indirectly amounts to stealing from the upper basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico). Arny didn't call me on my ignorance. I made a statement about where California gets its water, and so far you've both disagreed with me while confirming what I said. Arny also said I attacked you. That would be a lie. I can't make this any simpler. What is wrong with my statement that California gets its water supply from the Feather River, the Colorado river, and rain? How is that incorrect? It's an incomplete statement. For example, both local surface water sources and ground water sources are significantly higher than the Colorado River. Other local and federal imports also make up a significant share. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/exsum/esch2.html And tell me what states California is stealing water from? You see, the Colorado river borders Arizona and California. All other states are UPSTREAM. Arizona MAY have a case, but in reality, Arizona is a Johnny-Come-Lately who is whining that they didn't invest the money, time, resources, and aqueducts before California did. It doesn't matter where the states are located. There are 8 states which have legal rights to water from the Colorado River. Only California is exceeding its legal amount. The three other lower basin states (Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada) are directly impacted by California exceeding it's legal allotment. The four upper basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico) suffer since their water is used to cover the excess that California is stealiing. That wasn't so hard now, was it? Now would you like to state California's side of the argument? Boon |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:55:47 GMT, Joseph Oberlander wrote: dave weil wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: However, your claim that I have never made $60.00 in any year is Patently ridiculous. This ridiculous claim, casts extreme amounts of doubt on your remaining specific denials. Thanks for discrediting yourself so thoroughly, sockpuppet. You are lying mountain of excrement. He typed "60.000" instead of "60,000", and you know what he meant to say. And, he never said "$60.00". Plus, apparently Arnold doesn't know that the phrase 60.000 dollars *can* be used to represent $60,000. It depends where you are from. In europe and many other places, they use periods instead of commas in large numbers. Exactly. However, *nobody* represents $60.00 as $60.000. Nobody except for Arnold, of course. Did you know that two Brits crashed a Airbus into a mountain because they were looking at the onboard computer display that was reading altitude as "3,000" and they thought it said 3 thousand meters, it actually was reading 3 point zero zero zero meters. It is true. Of course that's speculation by the investigators using a simulator, and voice recorder data later, they couldn't actually ask the flight crew. You gotta watch that punctuation ... Carl |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800, (ScottW) wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW http://www.listingssandiego.com/sear...676&p3=-1&ix=0 You lose. Again. Nice doublewide!! Maybe down in Nashville Tennessee that would be considered a single family home. To me, at best, its a modular, and a very cheap one at that. Built in 2003, it looks like its ready to fall apart already. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800, (ScottW) wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW http://www.listingssandiego.com/sear...676&p3=-1&ix=0 You lose. Again. Nice doublewide!! Maybe down in Nashville Tennessee that would be considered a single family home. To me, at best, its a modular, and a very cheap one at that. Built in 2003, it looks like its ready to fall apart already. Yup, you got it. Its a double wide mobile home in a Seniors only park. Try again Dave. ScottW |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:54:30 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800, (ScottW) wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW http://www.listingssandiego.com/sear...676&p3=-1&ix=0 You lose. Again. Nice doublewide!! Maybe down in Nashville Tennessee that would be considered a single family home. It's classified as a single-family home. And the square footage indicates that as well. To me, at best, its a modular, and a very cheap one at that. Built in 2003, it looks like its ready to fall apart already. Yup, you got it. Its a double wide mobile home in a Seniors only park. Try again Dave. Let's see what you asked again: "Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck". "any detached single family home". You lose. Again. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"dave weil" wrote in message
On 12 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800, (ScottW) wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Given the industrial trappings of Weil's neighborhood, don't count out the toxic waste. He doesn't live that far from a wreckers yard. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW http://www.listingssandiego.com/sear...676&p3=-1&ix=0 You lose. It's not a house, it's a glorified house trailer! And despite it's proximity to "Oceanside Boulevard" it is less than about 2 miles from what I'd call a desert. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. Phillips, you're delusional. You don't have any original statements in this thread. Everything you've postured on this matter was in response to my claim that houses in California could lose appreciable value if there isn't enough drinking water for the people who might want to live in them. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and That would be a deception. Where California gets its water, such as it is, is well-known. You've admitted that much of it comes from a disputed source, namely the Colorado River. b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. That's a matter of the public record. The actual legal documents are online, but they are way too complex for you to understand, so I didn't cite them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. As usual Philips, you seem to be dead set on denying well-known facts. If you want to recant on your earlier positions, why don't you just say so directly? All that is rubbish. I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it. I'll stop laughing when you tell me something that I didn't already know. My question is the same to you as it is to Rusty. How does someone steal water off their own property, especially when the accusers are UPSTREAM? When there's a water rights treaty with someone downstream. Take all the time you need to obfuscate. I can't believe that someone in LA is so stoopid that they forget the existence of Mexico. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:54:30 -0800, "ScottW" wrote: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800, (ScottW) wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:01:55 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: LOL! I know better. It sold for an arm and a leg because its in Southern California, and even urban shacks like the one Weil lives in in Nashville, sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars. Weil probably paid about a fifth of that in Nashville. I'm flattered that you'd want to bring me into this discussion. Since I've publicly mentioned how much I paid for my house, your "speculation" isn't speculation at all. More deception from your quarter. And since you have no idea what kind of house I have, your speculation is even more stupid. There's no way that a house like mine would go for more than $250,000 *anywhere* in the US. Sorry, you lose. Again. If it won't go for 250K around here it must be an incredible dump and be located on a toxic waste dump. Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck. http://www.listingssandiego.com/ ScottW http://www.listingssandiego.com/sear...676&p3=-1&ix=0 You lose. Again. Nice doublewide!! Maybe down in Nashville Tennessee that would be considered a single family home. It's classified as a single-family home. And the square footage indicates that as well. To me, at best, its a modular, and a very cheap one at that. Built in 2003, it looks like its ready to fall apart already. Yup, you got it. Its a double wide mobile home in a Seniors only park. Try again Dave. Let's see what you asked again: "Here's a local real estate listing search. Find any detached single family home this side of the desert for less than 250K. Good luck". "any detached single family home". You lose. The Marshall and Swift residential cost estimating guide, which is used by almost all real estate aappraisers has separate sections for estimating single family homes and manufactured housing. Within the real estate profession, the home that you presented is not considered a single family home. Simply put, it is not of the same construction calss as a soingle family home. From: http://www.marshallswift.com/ecatalo...sourcecode=WFP a.. Locate thousands of square foot and component costs Basic single-family site built homes, low-rise multi-family apartment building, manufactured homes, older homes, town houses, duplexes, and urban row houses. Those are the dirffereent and distinct classes. There are separate classes for single family homes and manufactured housing. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:43:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: he doesn't live that far from a wreckers yard. That much is true. And not only one. However, I note that you went silent when I challenged your claim that you had seen pictures of my house in conjunction with a bar. In fact, I note that you went dumb when I challenged your claim that you had even seen a picture of my house. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:43:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: It's not a house, it's a glorified house trailer! Prove that a manufactured house isn't a house. Sorry, you lose. Again. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:47:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: The Marshall and Swift residential cost estimating guide, which is used by almost all real estate aappraisers has separate sections for estimating single family homes and manufactured housing. Within the real estate profession, the home that you presented is not considered a single family home. Simply put, it is not of the same construction class as a single family home. It is a single family home. Pure and simple. Spin all you want. The original challenge asked me to find a simgle family home on a certain web site. He didn't specify *any* certain kind of single family home. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
dave weil a écrit :
It is a single family home. Pure and simple. Spin all you want. The original challenge asked me to find a simgle family home on a certain web site. He didn't specify *any* certain kind of single family home. Just like for the WMD... You are right, the challenge hasn't specified which type of family home. In the other hand they are 3 to say that you lose so I think that you lose... ....again. (Just to let you imagine what was the taste of your intervention in my last discussion with S888Wheel ! LOL) |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:43:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: he doesn't live that far from a wreckers yard. That much is true. And not only one. However, I note that you went silent when I challenged your claim that you had seen pictures of my house in conjunction with a bar. On that day I lacked the time to explain modern technology to you, Weil. In fact, I note that you went dumb when I challenged your claim that you had even seen a picture of my house. I don't feel the need to repeat myself when you're acting THAT stupid, Weil. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:32:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:43:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: he doesn't live that far from a wreckers yard. That much is true. And not only one. However, I note that you went silent when I challenged your claim that you had seen pictures of my house in conjunction with a bar. On that day I lacked the time to explain modern technology to you, Weil. OK, so you pretty much admit that you lied. In fact, I note that you went dumb when I challenged your claim that you had even seen a picture of my house. I don't feel the need to repeat myself when you're acting THAT stupid, Weil. OK, so you pretty much lied. Fine enough. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:47:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The Marshall and Swift residential cost estimating guide, which is used by almost all real estate aappraisers has separate sections for estimating single family homes and manufactured housing. Within the real estate profession, the home that you presented is not considered a single family home. Simply put, it is not of the same construction class as a single family home. It is a single family home. Pure and simple. Spin all you want. The original challenge asked me to find a simgle family home on a certain web site. He didn't specify *any* certain kind of single family home. You can't read or comprehend any better than Trotsky. What do you think "detached" means? This example isn't one. Using someones abuse of the listing service in classifying a mobile as a detached single family home as evidence is taking a mistake and turning it into a lie. Of course your original challenge was that your home would not go for 250K anywhere in the US. We didn't know that you were trailer trash at the time you made that claim. ScottW |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
|
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips Exposes Himself, Again!
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:47:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: The Marshall and Swift residential cost estimating guide, which is used by almost all real estate aappraisers has separate sections for estimating single family homes and manufactured housing. Within the real estate profession, the home that you presented is not considered a single family home. Simply put, it is not of the same construction class as a single family home. It is a single family home. Pure and simple. Spin all you want. The original challenge asked me to find a simgle family home on a certain web site. He didn't specify *any* certain kind of single family home. Trailers don't count ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
Arny said:
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. Phillips, you're delusional. You don't have any original statements in this thread. Everything you've postured on this matter was in response to my claim that houses in California could lose appreciable value if there isn't enough drinking water for the people who might want to live in them. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and That would be a deception. Where California gets its water, such as it is, is well-known. You've admitted that much of it comes from a disputed source, namely the Colorado River. b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. That's a matter of the public record. The actual legal documents are online, but they are way too complex for you to understand, so I didn't cite them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. As usual Philips, you seem to be dead set on denying well-known facts. If you want to recant on your earlier positions, why don't you just say so directly? All that is rubbish. I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it. I'll stop laughing when you tell me something that I didn't already know. You knew that I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it? What does that have to do with anything? My question is the same to you as it is to Rusty. How does someone steal water off their own property, especially when the accusers are UPSTREAM? When there's a water rights treaty with someone downstream. That's not the point. Take all the time you need to obfuscate. I can't believe that someone in LA is so stoopid that they forget the existence of Mexico. Mexico is NOT another state, dimwit. Just quit while you're behind already. Boon |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail?
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message ... Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Arny said: "Marc Phillips" wrote in message Hint: Either you or Arny need to back up first and address my original statements. Phillips, you're delusional. You don't have any original statements in this thread. Everything you've postured on this matter was in response to my claim that houses in California could lose appreciable value if there isn't enough drinking water for the people who might want to live in them. The two of you are so immersed in the Internet-geek way of thinking that you've both failed to a)dispute my original claim of the sources of water for Southern California, and That would be a deception. Where California gets its water, such as it is, is well-known. You've admitted that much of it comes from a disputed source, namely the Colorado River. b)answered my question about which states are having water stolen from them. That's a matter of the public record. The actual legal documents are online, but they are way too complex for you to understand, so I didn't cite them. Both of you are so dead-set on arguing with me that you haven't noticed that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. As usual Philips, you seem to be dead set on denying well-known facts. If you want to recant on your earlier positions, why don't you just say so directly? All that is rubbish. I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it. I'll stop laughing when you tell me something that I didn't already know. You knew that I told you the sources for water in Southern California as a response to your statement that we are stealing it? What does that have to do with anything? My question is the same to you as it is to Rusty. How does someone steal water off their own property, especially when the accusers are UPSTREAM? When there's a water rights treaty with someone downstream. That's not the point. Take all the time you need to obfuscate. I can't believe that someone in LA is so stoopid that they forget the existence of Mexico. Mexico is NOT another state, dimwit. Just quit while you're behind already. It should be. Making it so would provide an answer to all our immigration problems. All Mexicans, here, or in the new State of Mexico (HAH! New Mexico is 'old' Mexico and Mexico is 'new' Mexico!!) would now be US citizens, and therefore legal. And, we wouldn't have much of a border problem. All we need to worry about is Hondurans sneaking into our newest state, but our southern border would be much shorter and easier to patrol. A win-win for us, for Mexico, and for Mexican immigrants. Mexican-Americans can come north to work, and American retirees can move south to our affordable new state. ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Linear Mode
