stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Yeah they are packard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Yeah they are packard. So sayeth he who never pulled that trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Seriously packard, jump off your shitty casino and land head first on the boardwalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthor Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 You can try to whitewash your primitive superstitions by using normalized words like, "circumstance", but it still sounds the same to me. It sounds like, "If a crow lands on your chimney and caws three times under the crescent moon, you will become a hopeless alcoholic." Unless you have something more concrete to add, shut up. The circumstances I know come from family, friends, and former patients, all people I've cared about or taken care of, or both. I'm not going to submit their issues for your amusement and scorn. And please, stop being so smug and ineducable; you're making the rest of us geriatrics look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnmjy Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Nobody's ever going to smell the differences between the towels. Everyone will but you, and you'll just say we're lying or you'll bring up something like Asch's conformity experiment. Seriously, just stop. It's one thing to say that the adverse reaction to cigarette odor is a conditioned response, but to say the whole odor's existence is is beyond stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 In the towel experiment, as described, everybody has only a one in eight chance of correctly guessing all three smokeless towels. Try as will, they can't rely on smell to change those odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 You can try to whitewash your primitive superstitions by using normalized words like, "circumstance", but it still sounds the same to me. It sounds like, "If a crow lands on your chimney and caws three times under the crescent moon, you will become a hopeless alcoholic." Unless you have something more concrete to add, shut up. If a retarded bum tells bad jokes while smoking "odorless" cigarettes and eating literal feces, will his name always be Daniel Semps- "Packard"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnmjy Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 In the towel experiment, as described, everybody has only a one in eight chance of correctly guessing all three smokeless towels. Try as will, they can't rely on smell to change those odds. And you seriously use this as proof that cigarettes don't smell? Why not try the experiment with farts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 And you seriously use this as proof that cigarettes don't smell? Why not try the experiment with farts? One in 8 butts has just farted. Follow your nose, where ever it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 If a retarded bum tells bad jokes while smoking "odorless" cigarettes and eating literal feces, will his name always be Daniel Semps- "Packard"? Still sticking to that Dan Sempsey thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 The circumstances I know come from family, friends, and former patients, all people I've cared about or taken care of, or both. I'm not going to submit their issues for your amusement and scorn. And please, stop being so smug and ineducable; you're making the rest of us geriatrics look bad. You should know I'm just using the wrathful crow as a plausible guess as to your level of reasoning. Any "circumstances" you care to name would be equally absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthor Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I've deleted my original response, and sincerely regret the energy I wasted on it. Replying to you is pointless while you live in your happy, shiny world where cigarette smoke smells like chocolate chip cookies baking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Still sticking to that Dan Sempsey thing? I don't hear any denial that you're a bum of the feces eating variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 And you seriously use this as proof that cigarettes don't smell? Why not try the experiment with farts? Methane and cigarette smoke are two entirely unrelated things. What you're saying is about as absurd as claiming that stainless steel has an aroma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 I don't hear any denial that you're a bum of the feces eating variety. Hardly worth a comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Hardly worth a comment. Yeah..... you really aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 I've deleted my original response, and sincerely regret the energy I wasted on it. Replying to you is pointless while you live in your happy, shiny world where cigarette smoke smells like chocolate chip cookies baking. You seriously remind me of those idiots who would walk into a room where no smoking had ever taken place, but complain that it reeks of smoke because the walls are beige instead of white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pail Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Everyone will but you, and you'll just say we're lying or you'll bring up something like Asch's conformity experiment. Seriously, just stop. It's one thing to say that the adverse reaction to cigarette odor is a conditioned response, but to say the whole odor's existence is is beyond stupid. In high school one of my Spanish teachers forced me to sit in the very back of the classroom because one girl kept complaining that I smelled like cigarettes. I'm pretty sure that wasn't technically legal but I hated the girl and the teacher so I did just enough to scrape by with a C and started torching bowls before class so I could sleep through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 In high school one of my Spanish teachers forced me to sit in the very back of the classroom because one girl kept complaining that I smelled like cigarettes. I'm pretty sure that wasn't technically legal but I hated the girl and the teacher so I did just enough to scrape by with a C and started torching bowls before class so I could sleep through it. I'm pretty sure the girl would not have made such an issue for you, had she not at some point witnessed visual evidence of your tobacco use. As for "torching bowls", there are other coping activities you could have chosen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pail Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I didn't start smoking until I was 16. She never saw me smoke. As far back as I can remember all my teachers thought I smoked because my parents smoked and I guess the smell stuck to my clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 You seriously remind me of those idiots who would walk into a room where no smoking had ever taken place, but complain that it reeks of smoke because the walls are beige instead of white. How many people do you have to make up before you realize your little pretend misadventures really don't stack up to anything and nobody buys it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 How many people do you have to make up before you realize your little pretend misadventures really don't stack up to anything and nobody buys it? I don't have to make anything up. Such folks are an infestation in this casino. That's what casinos do - they attract idiots. Idiots gamble and we take their money. Fools and their money are soon parted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 I didn't start smoking until I was 16. She never saw me smoke. As far back as I can remember all my teachers thought I smoked because my parents smoked and I guess the smell stuck to my clothes. People are always watching when you think they're not. That's life, absent a locked door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 People are always watching when you think they're not. That's life, absent a locked door. Not everyone is a creepy mother fucker like you packard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 I don't have to make anything up. Such folks are an infestation in this casino. That's what casinos do - they attract idiots. Idiots gamble and we take their money. Fools and their money are soon parted. I'm afraid anecdotal evidence is not an accepted form of argumentative discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 I'm afraid anecdotal evidence is not an accepted form of argumentative discourse. Neither are fake studies made of cherry picked data or manufactured circumstances that are a custom fit to the desired results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Neither are fake studies made of cherry picked data or manufactured circumstances that are a custom fit to the desired results. Where is your evidence of cherrypicking? A guy who wet his pants onto your casino carpet last week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdamizer Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Still sticking to that Dan Sempsey thing? Anyone gonna call this cum bubble out that he was called Dan semps and he correcited it to his real last name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Not everyone is a creepy mother fucker like you packard. Most people are also experts at making puzzling floor shows of themselves. Ripley proved that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Anyone gonna call this cum bubble out that he was called Dan semps and he correcited it to his real last name? Now, you KNOW it was Cyberbully who picked Sempsey's FB out of someplace and said that's who I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Where is your evidence of cherrypicking? A guy who wet his pants onto your casino carpet last week? The proof is in every "published and peer reviewed" study showing results that even a six year old could quite clearly see are not within the scope of actual possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Where is said study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Where is said study? Most of the anthropogenic climate change reports, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Packerd suck a butthole You're about as significant and meaningful in this world as one frog's burp in a hurricane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Most of the anthropogenic climate change reports, for starters. Go on, link one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Go on, link one. Pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 So, your posts are screaming that you do not have any links to the studies you claim support your nonsensical ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pail Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 People are always watching when you think they're not. That's life, absent a locked door. No, she never saw me smoke. My high school had around 1,200 students. We were separated by two grades, only had one class together and were not friends. Plus back then I only smoked on my way to and from school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 No, she never saw me smoke. My high school had around 1,200 students. We were separated by two grades, only had one class together and were not friends. Plus back then I only smoked on my way to and from school. Unless your walk to school consisted of passing through a series of man trap doors, you were seen. People see, people gossip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 The proof is in every "published and peer reviewed" study showing results that even a six year old could quite clearly see are not within the scope of actual possibility. Why are you such an insufferable retard? Just becayse your dumbass disagrees with factually proven research doesn't mean the research is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is, science says climate change is happening. Your shiteating "uh, but it's cold today" makes you look like a colossal idiot, not an astute genius - because climate change accounts for the natural cycle of heating and cooling, but the average high has increased dramatically in direct correlation to manmade CO2 output. Clapping your hands together an drooling all over yourself while saying it's not true holds no weight against the overwhelming scientific evidence from countless well-educated, well-researched sources from professionals in the field. An incredulously stupud, paint-huffing alcoholic janitor who denies the existence of cigarette smoke odor and cites bar patrons is a farcry from a reliable source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Now, you KNOW it was Cyberbully who picked Sempsey's FB out of someplace and said that's who I am. He says in a reply to Sawdamizer.......You need real help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 No, she never saw me smoke. My high school had around 1,200 students. We were separated by two grades, only had one class together and were not friends. Plus back then I only smoked on my way to and from school. Pacman is a legit idishit.....I told him a similar story where I smoked in a work truck on my way home from my teenage job at the pecan house......I told him she smelled the smoke on me when I walked in the house and his response was "that she had been conditioned by news articles to smell smoke on her child".......This only magically happened when I had actually smoked, but that is one of those unexplained phenomena that only exist in the bleach addled brain of a century long employed custodian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bnmjy Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Methane and cigarette smoke are two entirely unrelated things. What you're saying is about as absurd as claiming that stainless steel has an aroma. Funny you say methane when it is odorless. Sulfur is what makes farts smell bad. My point was you would have to try the stupid towel experiment on something else to prove its veracity. I'm just gonna go with you have no sense of smell and you reek of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Why are you such an insufferable retard? Just becayse your dumbass disagrees with factually proven research doesn't mean the research is wrong. The simple fact of the matter is, science says climate change is happening. Your shiteating "uh, but it's cold today" makes you look like a colossal idiot, not an astute genius - because climate change accounts for the natural cycle of heating and cooling, but the average high has increased dramatically in direct correlation to manmade CO2 output. Clapping your hands together an drooling all over yourself while saying it's not true holds no weight against the overwhelming scientific evidence from countless well-educated, well-researched sources from professionals in the field. An incredulously stupud, paint-huffing alcoholic janitor who denies the existence of cigarette smoke odor and cites bar patrons is a farcry from a reliable source That's easy to say when the actual survey is over a thousand area points and then only the top fifty are included in the final report. Anyway, even in a five mile radius, the temperature can vary by as much as ten degrees. Back in the 1970's, it was predicted by "scientists" that the the entire planet would be under a new ice age by now. Did it happen? Also, recording five or minute spikes as the "high" in a given area isn't going to give correct results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 That's easy to say when the actual survey is over a thousand area points and then only the top fifty are included in the final report. Anyway, even in a five mile radius, the temperature can vary by as much as ten degrees. Back in the 1970's, it was predicted by "scientists" that the the entire planet would be under a new ice age by now. Did it happen? Also, recording five or minute spikes as the "high" in a given area isn't going to give correct results. That's not what they do. Only a few scientists predicted an ice age, who were found to have used faulty data. The majority redacted the claim. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the '70s predicted a rise in temperature, not a decline, and that assessment has been correct. Either way, scientists are able to make mistakes. The point of a scientist isn't to already know everything. The point is to research and discover, then report the discovery. And they don't use 5-minute intervals to determine global warming. That's what you would probably do because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. They use global data year-round to determine yearly averages and use literal decades worth of data to track the increase or decline. A 5-minute spike, as you put it, is completely irrelevant and if you knew what you were talking about, it wouldn't be something you'd bother bringing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 That's not what they do. Only a few scientists predicted an ice age, who were found to have used faulty data. The majority redacted the claim. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the '70s predicted a rise in temperature, not a decline, and that assessment has been correct. Either way, scientists are able to make mistakes. The point of a scientist isn't to already know everything. The point is to research and discover, then report the discovery. And they don't use 5-minute intervals to determine global warming. That's what you would probably do because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. They use global data year-round to determine yearly averages and use literal decades worth of data to track the increase or decline. A 5-minute spike, as you put it, is completely irrelevant and if you knew what you were talking about, it wouldn't be something you'd bother bringing up. The point of today's scientists, apparently, is adamantly support the agendas of whoever shovels the most money into their pet projects. To Hell with any facts. And, if that means using the methods I describe, that's what they'll do. Don't trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 The point of today's scientists, apparently, is adamantly support the agendas of whoever shovels the most money into their pet projects. To Hell with any facts. And, if that means using the methods I describe, that's what they'll do. Don't trust them. Prove it. Give me evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mthor Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 The point of today's scientists, apparently, is adamantly support the agendas of whoever shovels the most money into their pet projects. To Hell with any facts. And, if that means using the methods I describe, that's what they'll do. Don't trust them. Windows, walls, or hats, always remember: Shiny side out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FieryDoom Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Anyone gonna call this cum bubble out that he was called Dan semps and he correcited it to his real last name? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1938_Packard Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 Actually, that was Cyberbully who first said, Sempsey. Of course, Cyber still doesn't know that Sempsey doesn't reside in Atlantic City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts