You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #65: NOPE [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
PamW Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-10-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
65. NOPE

What you have there Kris is called an "assertion".

It's not a proof.

It's time you grew up and learned the difference.

PamW

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -3 Reasons to Avoid Nuclear Power kristopher  Dec-09-11 09:28 PM   #0 
  - three reasons to avoid nuclear power:  niyad   Dec-09-11 09:31 PM   #1 
  - which are...  PamW   Dec-10-11 05:33 PM   #15 
  - They make money for a few decades, but then they  lob1   Dec-09-11 09:48 PM   #2 
  - The point of this report by the Fool...  Bob Wallace   Dec-09-11 10:30 PM   #3 
  - My point was that it's a bad investment, too.  lob1   Dec-09-11 10:50 PM   #4 
     - Not your call to make....  PamW   Dec-10-11 05:26 PM   #14 
        - Exelon does make money off nuclear...  Bob Wallace   Dec-10-11 07:42 PM   #23 
           - Exelon CEO...  Bob Wallace   Dec-10-11 11:49 PM   #69 
  - Not if you reprocess / recycle  PamW   Dec-10-11 02:48 PM   #7 
     - Nope.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 03:24 PM   #9 
        - Just because anti-nukes say it doesn't make it true.  PamW   Dec-10-11 04:00 PM   #11 
           - This is tiresome. You are making another assertion that you KNOW to be false.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 05:44 PM   #16 
              - You misinterpret  PamW   Dec-10-11 06:31 PM   #18 
              - The table lays all of the alternatives out in the same column.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 07:30 PM   #20 
                 - NOT FALSE  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:01 PM   #27 
                    - The original point is unambiguously answered here, and you are wrong.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:22 PM   #34 
                       - FAULTY ERROR ERROR  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:39 PM   #42 
              - Unfortunately....  PamW   Dec-10-11 07:26 PM   #19 
              - You can't worm your way out with the "baffle 'em with bullshit" tactic either.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 07:33 PM   #21 
                 - NOPE!!  PamW   Dec-10-11 07:49 PM   #25 
                 - Tell that to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, it is their data.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:04 PM   #28 
                    - I have no beef with DOE. Only your FAULTY interpretation  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:32 PM   #37 
                       - You ARE disputing the DOE data.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:34 PM   #39 
                          - Tell us what Class C waste is..  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:51 PM   #46 
                             - You are trying to create another straw man.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 09:12 PM   #50 
                                - I note no enlightenment from you.  PamW   Dec-10-11 09:21 PM   #52 
                 - You underestimate our readership  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:05 PM   #29 
                    - You are arguing with DOE Pam - their data is unambiguous.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:15 PM   #31 
                       - BAD INTERPRETATION  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:26 PM   #35 
                          - This is the claim you are disputing  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:31 PM   #36 
                             - I'm not disputing DOE - only saying YOU are WRONG!!  PamW   Dec-10-11 09:05 PM   #48 
                             - All this about...  PamW   Dec-10-11 10:03 PM   #57 
              - FAULTY interpretation  PamW   Dec-10-11 07:41 PM   #22 
              - Unlike you I have already given a complete reference pam.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 07:48 PM   #24 
                 - Even the devil...  PamW   Dec-10-11 07:53 PM   #26 
                    - Tell that to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, it is their data.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:08 PM   #30 
                       - I have no problem with DOE; only your FAULTY interpretation  PamW   Dec-10-11 08:17 PM   #32 
                          - It isn't subject to interpretation it is unambiguous  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:21 PM   #33 
                          - This is the assertion you said was an anti-nuclear falsehood  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:32 PM   #38 
              - Kris - this is really quite simple  FBaggins   Dec-10-11 08:38 PM   #40 
                 - You're right, but your question is irrelevant to the discussion.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:42 PM   #43 
                    - "Yes or no" cannot be substituted with "you're right"  FBaggins   Dec-10-11 08:44 PM   #44 
                       - Bullshit.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:48 PM   #45 
                       - Still dodging?  FBaggins   Dec-10-11 08:52 PM   #47 
                          - Adhering to the point isn't "dodging"  kristopher   Dec-10-11 09:06 PM   #49 
                             - Inventing the point, OTOH, *IS*  FBaggins   Dec-10-11 09:22 PM   #53 
                             - The "true believer" isn't swayed by logic or science...  PamW   Dec-10-11 09:51 PM   #55 
                             - Read Dr Till's statement on the Argonne process  PamW   Dec-10-11 09:31 PM   #54 
                       - He doesn't know his waste Classes  PamW   Dec-10-11 09:17 PM   #51 
  - ONE reason to avoid nuclear power...  Karenina   Dec-09-11 11:29 PM   #5 
  - One of the biggest, most important reasons - we failed already  saras   Dec-10-11 01:27 AM   #6 
  - That was the argument; but what is the reality?  PamW   Dec-10-11 02:56 PM   #8 
     - Nuclear cheerleaders live in a fantasy world.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 03:27 PM   #10 
        - For the United States....  PamW   Dec-10-11 04:14 PM   #12 
        - Proliferation-proof reprocessing  PamW   Dec-10-11 04:28 PM   #13 
        - There it is, proof positive that nuclear cheerleaders live in a fantasy world.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 05:46 PM   #17 
           - NOPE  PamW   Dec-10-11 11:16 PM   #65 
  - 6 standard false claims of the nuclear industry  kristopher   Dec-10-11 08:39 PM   #41 
  - This is where knowing the science comes in handy.  PamW   Dec-10-11 10:27 PM   #60 
     - Dual use technologies are part of the nuclear fuel cycles.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 10:41 PM   #62 
        - WRONG WRONG!!!  PamW   Dec-10-11 11:25 PM   #67 
  - Expanding on the IEER points regarding reprocessing:  kristopher   Dec-10-11 09:54 PM   #56 
     - I stongly urge...  PamW   Dec-10-11 10:10 PM   #58 
        - Is this an accurate statement of what you believe to be true regarding reprocessing?  kristopher   Dec-10-11 10:23 PM   #59 
           - Summary  PamW   Dec-10-11 10:39 PM   #61 
              - Good. You are clearly on the record.  kristopher   Dec-10-11 10:44 PM   #63 
                 - The parts I read were just plain WRONG!!  PamW   Dec-10-11 11:13 PM   #64 
                    - What good are these mere assertions by you, a known purveyor of false information?  kristopher   Dec-10-11 11:19 PM   #66 
                       - Evidently you aren't reading or at least understanding.  PamW   Dec-10-11 11:38 PM   #68 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC