Snow leaves thousands of motorists stranded in French Alps

A car is stuck in the snow on December 27, 2014 on the road to Les Saisies ski resort in Savoie, central-eastern France
A car is stuck in the snow on December 27, 2014 on the road to Les Saisies ski resort in Savoie, central-eastern France

Heavy snowfall in the French Alps left some 15,000 drivers stranded overnight into Sunday, forcing many to pass the night in their cars and prompting officials to open emergency shelters.

The snow and ice hit as a rush of holidaymakers were heading to and leaving from ski resorts in the Savoie region in southeastern France, where authorities set up shelters in at least 12 towns.

The snow, freezing rain and icy conditions caused the death of a 27-year-old man whose car slid into a ravine in the Belledonne mountain range.

France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve in a statement urged drivers "to exercise the utmost caution" and asked those who could delay their trips to do so.

The country declared an orange weather alert—one step under the maximum red alert—in 19 regional departments.

One driver stuck in his car on a freeway in the Alps with four passengers, Kevin Clavel, told AFP: "To go 130 kilometres (80 miles) it's taken us 10 hours."

Wind closes Calais port

France's meteorological services said they expected more snowfall and "significant re-freezing" overnight and warned of slippery roads.

Elsewhere in France, it was wind and not snow that wrought havoc for holiday travellers.

Storms packing gusts of up to 160 kilometres (100 miles) per hour forced the temporary closure of France's port of Calais on the English Channel and the suspension of car ferries to and from Britain.

Snow fall as cars move bumper-to-bumper along the motorway near Albertville, on December 27, 2014, as they make their way into t
Snow fall as cars move bumper-to-bumper along the motorway near Albertville, on December 27, 2014, as they make their way into the Tarentaise valley in the heart of the French Alps

A few kilometres outside the industrial northern city, thousands of illegal migrants living in makeshift camps struggled through a second night of freezing temperatures.

"The conditions outside are hellish in the 'jungles'," said David Lacour, the director of Solid'R, which is running a care centre to help migrants survive the cold.

"The storm blew away a lot of tents—some now have nothing."

Mattresses line the floor of the old warehouse, once used to store flowers now filled with groups of migrants, some playing cards, some sleeping, some trying to dry their soaked shoes and socks after walking for more than an hour to get here.

Up to 2,300 migrants are thought to be in Calais and surrounding areas, where they live in flimsy tents waiting for a change to complete their final journey to Britain.

"This is a good shelter here, people help us a lot. It is difficult to survive in the 'jungle'," 23-year-old Eritrean Petrus told AFP.

A double-decker bus travels over Standedge between snow-covered fields at dusk near the village of Diggle, northern England, on
A double-decker bus travels over Standedge between snow-covered fields at dusk near the village of Diggle, northern England, on December 27, 2014

Strong winds also forced the closure of the gardens of the famed chateau of Versailles near Paris.

Snow caused disruption in Britain too, leading to power shortages in more than 100,000 homes and delays at airports.

The heaviest snow was in Leek, western central England, where 11 centimetres (4.3 inches) fell.

People put snow chains on their tires as snow falls on December 27, 2014 on the road to the Les Saisies ski resort in Savoie, ce
People put snow chains on their tires as snow falls on December 27, 2014 on the road to the Les Saisies ski resort in Savoie, central-eastern France

Flights to European destinations took off with delays from Manchester Airport, the third-biggest in Britain.

Forecasters predict that temperatures in Britain could drop as low as minus 10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) next week.


Explore further

US northeast braces for flooding after record snow

© 2014 AFP

Citation: Snow leaves thousands of motorists stranded in French Alps (2014, December 28) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-thousands-motorists-stranded-french-alps.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 30, 2014
Looky there at all that global warming ;) LOL

Dec 30, 2014
Looky there at all that global warming ;) LOL
@ubaTROLL
this is waht is irritating about uba-TROLL

on one thread you are cogent and insightful, but when it comes to ANY mention of AGW or global warming, you go instantly stupid
intelligent one minute, super stupid the next
(not ignorant, as you've been given scientific evidence already explaining this)

How does global warming cause cold weather?
read the following: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

I've posted this to you before but you ignored it
it is a STUDY with empirical measured observed data

it is one of the studies i asked you to refute in the past and you down-voted it (& ran away) likely because you either:
-don't like science
-can't refute it so you choose to TROLL
-are being paid to be anti-science with regard to AGW (as in: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )

Dec 30, 2014
@Cap'n-TROLL
on one thread you are cogent and insightful, but when it comes to ANY mention of AGW or global warming, you go instantly stupid
Maybe your perception is in error, and the problem is you?

Why, for instance, won't you even accept the standard dictionary definition for global warming?

How does global warming cause cold weather?
read the following: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

I've posted this to you before but you ignored it
it is a STUDY with empirical measured observed data
It's a B.S. paper written after the fact of an unusually cold winter to try and justify AGW dogma/policy in light of the bitter cold, and without regard to previous predictions of incessant heat and drought.

-are being paid to be anti-science with regard to AGW (as in: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )
If you're suggesting I'm for sale, then rest assured, I wouldn't currently agree with the AGWite warmists no matter how much they paid me... LOL


Jan 02, 2015
with 18+ years of ZERO GLOBAL WARMING its rational, just and an obligation to mock the AGW-ites.

Now, of course, I'm relying on empirical global satellite measurements and the AGW-ites are relying on their religion so whatever.

Jan 02, 2015
with 18+ years of ZERO GLOBAL WARMING its rational, just and an obligation to mock the AGW-ites.

Hmm. Even satellite measurements, with their known problems, say there's been warming over the last 18+ years.

Now, of course, I'm relying on empirical global satellite measurements and the AGW-ites are relying on their religion so whatever.

Now I like computer models as much as the next guy (you did know that satellites use computer models to obtain the temperature, didn't you?), but with all the known issues and built in cooling bias with satellites, it would seem kind of silly to prefer them to direct temperature measurements on the ground. Especially when even climate "skeptics" have shown that the ground measurements are very good.

Jan 03, 2015
and the problem is you?
@UbaTROLL
nope, the problem is you
when you blatantly ignore reams of empirical data and studies that scientifically explain or experimentally enlighten you as to the situation for the sake of a politically/religious/conspiratorial belief that keeps you posting diatribe against the science, then the problem is NOT the science posted by me
It's a B.S. paper written after the fact of an unusually cold winter to try and justify AGW dogma/policy in light of the bitter cold, and without regard to previous predictions of incessant heat and drought
some flaws in your ointment of blatant stupidity:
1- she's been preaching this for well over a decade
2- she's been collecting this information for WELL over a decade proving her point
3- this study is simply the accumulated evidence collected for well over a decade

which brings us back to the POINT

I've asked you to refute this, and the best you got is "its a BS paper"??

Jan 03, 2015
@UbaTROLL [cont'd]
It's a B.S. paper written after the fact ...
ok, so BESIDES the fact that this is simply a paper proving what she has been preaching for almost 20 years or more...
Where is your refute of it OTHER than "it's BS"
you have no proof that it is BS, nor do you supply evidence that it is wrong other than your say-so which, as we can see by your comment above (and following) is siding with anyone anti-science
If you're suggesting I'm for sale, then rest assured, I wouldn't currently agree with the AGWite warmists no matter how much they paid me... LOL
I offered you a scientific paper

Please provide the mathematical or other reasons for the refute, along with the evidence supporting your argument that directly refutes the study so that it can be forwarded to the author

I am sure if i passed on "its BS" to the author, she would ask you to explain why
This is your chance to show up the empirical evidence

EXPLAIN WHY

Jan 03, 2015
[lastly re: ubaTROLL] with regard to
If you're suggesting I'm for sale,
i am suggesting nothing, i am saying that there is good evidence supporting that you are

there is no way that someone with scientific discipline and knowledge would ignore empirical evidence unless there is some external force applying pressure
in your case, it is financial

this is NOT about
AGWite warmists
because i am not an AGW alarmist, i am simply promoting the science
that alarmist stuff can be dealt with by the leaders or politicians
for me, there is only science

and you have YET to be able to provide ANY science in any way, shape or form, that undermines the overwhelming science supporting AGW and it's causes or it's effects... which include cold snaps in the weather as proven by the study
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

i follow the evidence, not politics or religions
and you've never had any reputable evidence
period

Jan 03, 2015
Addendum input for @Uba
...It's a B.S. paper written after the fact ...
the following information SUPPORTS the study above:
http://www.arctic...ortcard/
http://www.arctic...ortcard/air_temperature.html

you are already commenting on it: http://phys.org/n...rth.html

you also failed to remember that the video's posted previously by me (over the past year) https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
are from the study author

http://www.weathe...20140106

all that besides the fact it was published BEFORE we started seeing huge results in 2013 and now...
Received 17 January 2012
and the data was collected and PREDICTED accurately and we see the results now

IOW - you failed
by not reading the SCIENCE you look like a complete idiot

again

Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'nTROLL
when you blatantly ignore reams of empirical data and studies
You are confused, this is an AGWite trait. I certainly do not ignore empirical data and studies.

this study is simply the accumulated evidence collected for well over a decade
No it is not. The "data" was not collected for this study, rather existing data was interpreted for the study.

I've asked you to refute this, and the best you got is "its a BS paper"??
Bad science is bad science. Its claims are baseless. There is no statistical evidence that proves we are experiencing more extreme weather than occurs from natural variability.


Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'nTROLL
i am suggesting nothing, i am saying that there is good evidence supporting that you are

there is no way that someone with scientific discipline and knowledge would ignore empirical evidence unless there is some external force applying pressure
So what is the external pressure persuading you to ignore standard definitions and empirical data sets?

in your case, it is financial
Funny, my bank account simply does not agree.

this is NOT about "AGWite warmists" because i am not an AGW alarmist, i am simply promoting the science
This is clearly a lie, as you won't even agree to the standard definition for global warming.

and you have YET to be able to provide ANY science in any way, shape or form, that undermines the overwhelming science supporting AGW and it's causes or it's effects...
Your deliberate ignorance is profound.


Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'n
the following information SUPPORTS the study above:
http://www.arctic...ortcard/
LOL. First with the alarming headline: "Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic. The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth."

Then: "However, natural variation remains, such as the slight increase in March 2014 sea ice thickness and only a slight decrease in total mass of the Greenland ice sheet in summer 2014."

Proving it's just typical NOAA, AGWite alarmist bull.

http://www.arctic...ortcard/air_temperature.html
More NOAA B.S. MSU clearly shows a different picture. Look at how flat this polar temp graph is since 1998 (in fact, it is trending down). Note: you will have to choose "North Polar" from the right drop down.

http://images.rem...ies.html

Why is it you only provide the cherry-picked "data" which supports your world view?


Jan 03, 2015
@UbaTROLL
this is almost hysterically funny given your historical posts
I certainly do not ignore empirical data and studies
other than, of course the years old study i linked that you called "BS" because you didn't like what it said
or the CO2 study i linked here: http://www.scienc...abstract
or these: http://iopscience...4002.pdf
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
and this one you hated, ignored and vilified: http://iopscience.../article
i can prove that you historically have ignored every single study i've linked to date with the exception of the last and the Francis, which you've called BS but couldn't give any credible refute

i can prove you ignore them by linking any climate change article thread you post in
LOL

Jan 03, 2015
@UbaTROLL
No it is not. The "data" was not collected for this study, rather existing data was interpreted for the study
except that the predictions have been discussed by her publicly for almost 2 decades
the data was collected in the few years pre-publication and now we SEE the prediction happening, so again you fail
Bad science is bad science. Its claims are baseless
you've not been able to prove ANY bad science OR that the claims are baseless
all you have is your personal conjecture, which is no different than me claiming i am a Mercedes because i can stand in a garage

i follow the evidence
period
you have never been able to provide ANY evidence that refutes AGW, global warming or your "bad science baseless claims" assertions

so why should we take YOUR word over anyone elses when you can't even be honest about ignoring the evidence and studies?
You have blatantly lied right here about not ignoring studies!
why should we think you're honest any other time?


Jan 03, 2015
@Cap'nTROLL:
this is almost hysterically funny given your historical posts
I certainly do not ignore empirical data and studies
other than, of course the years old study i linked that you called "BS" because you didn't like what it said
or the CO2 study i linked here: http://www.scienc...abstract
i can prove that you historically have ignored every single study i've linked to date with the exception of the last and the Francis, which you've called BS but couldn't give any credible refute

i can prove you ignore them by linking any climate change article thread you post in
LOL
Dismissing a study for being poor quality science is not ignoring the study.


Jan 03, 2015
@ubaTROLL
Again, it is B.S..


repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it

you've never been able to give any evidence that ANY of the linked studies are "bad science", "bs" or any other claim you have given

the genius of the scientific method: if you have the ability to refute it, you can
& that evidence must use the scientific method and will be given the same treatment of the original (peer review and investigation for validity)

you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs

you will simply keep repeating your same old lines with no evidence

and i will continue to point out that you've never been able to offer any reputable evidence at all whatsoever that there is anything wrong with any of the studies

you lose regardless
MOSTLY because you can't bring evidence that refutes the studies
but also because all you have is conjecture


Jan 03, 2015
@UbaTROLL
Dismissing a study for being poor quality science is not ignoring the study.
you've never been able to prove it is poor quality
you've only ever said this and made the claim

thats called personal conjecture

given that you've NO evidence supporting this conjecture that is reputable
and given that you are not a reputable source of information as proven above by your inability to even be honest about your own posts @ PO

then your conjecture can be dismissed out of hand as simple blatant lies from a whiner and TROLL who cannot support her own conclusions

and that is not a slam, either
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
an argument without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Jan 03, 2015
except that the predictions have been discussed by her publicly for almost 2 decades
the data was collected in the few years pre-publication and now we SEE the prediction happening, so again you fail
B.S.. Again, there is no statistical evidence proving we are experiencing any weather extremes outside of natural variability.

you've not been able to prove ANY bad science OR that the claims are baseless
all you have is your personal conjecture, which is no different than me claiming i am a Mercedes because i can stand in a garage


http://www.sjsu.e...tion.htm

And though I generally wouldn't link to this site for comment content, here are some easily viewable statistical analyses:

http://wattsupwit...er-page/

continued....


Jan 03, 2015
i follow the evidence
period
you have never been able to provide ANY evidence that refutes AGW, global warming or your "bad science baseless claims" assertions
That you deny both the standard definition of "global warming" and deny the empirical data regarding global temperatures, is wholly evident.

so why should we take YOUR word over anyone elses when you can't even be honest about ignoring the evidence and studies?
You have blatantly lied right here about not ignoring studies!
why should we think you're honest any other time?
Obvioulsly the one lying here, is you. Or, are you now willing to step up and accept the standard definition for "global warming?

...No?

...I didn't think so...


Jan 03, 2015
the genius of the scientific method: if you have the ability to refute it, you can
& that evidence must use the scientific method and will be given the same treatment of the original (peer review and investigation for validity)
Which I regularly use.

you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs
Now you are just blatantly lying.

you will simply keep repeating your same old lines with no evidence
This appears to be your shtick.

and i will continue to point out that you've never been able to offer any reputable evidence at all whatsoever that there is anything wrong with any of the studies
See? Your shtick. Lying too.

Jan 03, 2015
Looky there at all that global warming ;) LOL

I'm curious. What part of the word 'global' don't you understand?

Jan 04, 2015
Looky there at all that global warming ;) LOL
I'm curious. What part of the word 'global' don't you understand?
I'm curious. Do you even accept the standard definition for global warming?


Jan 04, 2015
If you mean by 'standard definition' that more energy is being trapped in the atmosphere/oceans due to an increase of CO2 concentration (sourced by human caused processes) by known and demonstrable thermodynmaic processes? Of course I do.

Why? Because: physics.

Jan 04, 2015
I'm curious. Do you even accept the standard definition for global warming?
you keep going on about this... whereas you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do NOT adhere to it yourself... only that you pick and choose what to believe and when
This is demonstrated above as well as in almost every other thread you post ing with regards to climate science
you ignore the oceans
you state the studies are "bs" or "bad science" but you have never
NEVER ONCE
been able to demonstrate ANY bad science, that the studies are bs or ANY OTHER FALLACY that you are continuing to claim
IOW - you are continuing to blatantly lie and simply saying "that's your shtick" when caught


Jan 04, 2015
@UbaTARD TROLL
as for your "links"
one discusses
Wesley Claire Mitchell discovered that rates of return in stock markets did not truly have normal distributions even though the distributions looked more or less like normal distributions
and
Some weather/climate statistics have been shown to have non-normal stable distributions
which doesn't apply to ANY study i've linked

nor can you demonstrate where it is applicable to any said study

Otherwise, again, given that all the data is open to investigation and source code is equally accessible, there would be study upon study refuting the published studies which have been found to be incorrect

how many are there?
thats right... NONE

for the "watts up with" garbage... what is are you trying to prove with that ?
there is no published data refuting the study i linked
you claim
here are some easily viewable statistical analyses:
but there is nothing that refutes a single study i've linked yet

cont'd

Jan 04, 2015
[cont'd] @UbatardTROLL
you've never given ANY information for ANY reputable source proving that ANY study is wrong or bad or bs

Now you are just blatantly lying
you've never once been able to prove any single study i've posted is wrong, bad or has any disreputable science or even sources

otherwise you would have already
and repeating it is a blatant lie, or that i am lying over and over doesn't make it any more true

link the evidence
show the reputable, peer reviewed journals and publications that refute the studies that i have linked and prove that i have linked a study that has been "refuted, revoked or proven to contain ANY bad, disreputable science"

by all means
link away with your data
show me where those studies have been revoked, refuted etc

i've only been trying to get you to do that for ... what?
MONTHS?

Jan 04, 2015
If you mean by 'standard definition' that more energy is being trapped in the atmosphere/oceans due to an increase of CO2 concentration (sourced by human caused processes) by known and demonstrable thermodynmaic processes? Of course I do.

Why? Because: physics.
Nice evasion there. Too bad it proves you are a liar along with the likes of Captain Stumpy.

Obviously, I mean the standard dictionary definition as in:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Why are the AGWites so afraid of the very definition they devised?


Jan 04, 2015
Nice evasion there. Too bad it proves you are a liar along with the likes of Captain Stumpy
@UbatardTROLL
Who are you trying to convince? yourself ?

Because anyone who is even semi-literate will be able to simply scroll back up through the comments and see that the only one lying and not posting any evidence supporting their BS trolling/baiting posts is you!

& i noticed that you failed to provide ANY evidence refuting those studies!
AGAIN!!

now you are trying to redirect the entire argument and thread into something else?

you still haven't answered the challenge above to refute the studies linked (and in doing so making you an instant worldwide celebrity because you debunked thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of studies)
NOR have you been able to prove me wrong (or a liar)

like i said above...
repetition of a lie doesn't make it any more true

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nLYINGTROLL:
I'm curious. Do you even accept the standard definition for global warming?
you keep going on about this... whereas you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do NOT adhere to it yourself... only that you pick and choose what to believe and when
This is demonstrated above as well as in almost every other thread you post ing with regards to climate science
So to evade the definition, you use the red herring, tu quoque argument (childish, "I'm rubber and you're glue." argument) of accusing me of not accepting the definition? LOL.

Try again.


Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nLYINGTROLL:
you've never once been able to prove any single study i've posted is wrong, bad or has any disreputable science or even sources
Is lying all you have?

Jan 05, 2015
Is lying all you have?
@Ubastupid
apparently it is all YOU have
so, again... what you are saying is you have nothing except your own personal conjecture

that still doesn't count as a refute, nor is it equivalent to the empirical studies posted

you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!

you can link all the extremist sites you want
you can cherry-pick all the data you want
you can blatantly lie about the results like above

but it still doesn't change the results OR the facts: you have nothing but personal conjecture
you have no reputable science
you don't even understand the links you have tried to use or why they weren't applicable to the links or studies i posted
you have no equivalent reputable evidence refuting the studies i linked

and i will continue to point this out while you try to distract from the conversation or topic
Thanks for making the refute so easy

Jan 05, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPID:
Is lying all you have?
apparently it is all YOU have

you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!
Well, my claim that you won't accept the standard dictionary definition for global warming certainly is true, don't you think?


Jan 06, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPID:
Is lying all you have?
apparently it is all YOU have

you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!
Well, my claim that you won't accept the standard dictionary definition for global warming certainly is true, don't you think?


asked and answered

Jan 10, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPID:
Is lying all you have?
apparently it is all YOU have

you have never once been able to offer reputable scientific studies supporting ANY of your claims!
Well, my claim that you won't accept the standard dictionary definition for global warming certainly is true, don't you think?
asked and answered
Evasion is not an answer.


Jan 10, 2015
Ubavontuba you need to get on the bankster bandwagon with AGW study funder David Rothschild or you're not hip and you won't get facebook friends like Obama has to get all his facts

Scientific studies proved:
Cigarettes are good for you
Airplanes will never fly
Quantum mechanics is just an aberration
Radiation is safe
Russia bad. Russia bad. Russia bad. NAZIs good
Men are idiots

Jan 12, 2015
Evasion is not an answer.
@Ubastupid
it's not evading

you asked and i answered above
it's not my fault you are too stupid to find it or work the scroll function at the side of the page

maybe you should get a 5 year old to help you look for it?

you like to repeat the same lies over and over
but it will not help here
you've not been able to find ANY evidence refuting the studies
you can't even find an answer that i gave already...

and you want to blame me for this WHY?

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Jan 12, 2015
@Cap'nSTUPID
it's not evading

you asked and i answered above
This is a lie. You provided two responses. One was to chilishly accuse me of not accepting the definition (which itself, is a lie) and the other to state "asked and answered." There is no bonafide answer above as to why you do not accept the standard dictionary definition for global warming.

Try again, hotshot.


Jan 12, 2015
Ubavontuba you need to get on the bankster bandwagon with AGW study funder David Rothschild or you're not hip and you won't get facebook friends like Obama has to get all his facts

Scientific studies proved:
Cigarettes are good for you
Airplanes will never fly
Quantum mechanics is just an aberration
Radiation is safe
Russia bad. Russia bad. Russia bad. NAZIs good
Men are idiots

I'm just gonna assume this was a failed (or so it appears) attempt at humour.

Jan 12, 2015
Agomemnon claimed
with 18+ years of ZERO GLOBAL WARMING its rational, just and an obligation to mock the AGW-ites
By globe of course you MUST include the ~70% of oceans yes/no ?

Agomemnon made an outrageous claim
Now, of course, I'm relying on empirical global satellite measurements and the AGW-ites are relying on their religion so whatever
Really ? Like these ones:-

http://woodfortre...ormalise

http://woodfortre...ormalise

What do U conclude Agomemnon ?

Obvious isnt it, U are so out of step with reality, so sad !

Jan 12, 2015
ubavontuba offered
Looky there at all that global warming ;) LOL
Indeed as France is not far from Arctic circle so all that thermal mass is open to being distributed as chaotic influences affect thermal flows.

Does ubavontuba have limited understanding & must bark uneducated & narrowly ?

Does this betray the depth of ubavontuba's feeble intellect perhaps ?

Has ubavontuba not understood comparative thermal distribution Eg Specific heat ?

Y is it that since ubavontuba who joined in 2007, to make barking comments hasn't achieved any useful university qualifications in over EIGHT (8) years to, at least, be knowledgeable,
studious, qualified, smart etc ?

What's wrong with ubavontuba's & zeal to understand & become learned ?

Something is clearly wrong, what could it be, is ubavontuba a static paid automaton ?

The evidence does show otherwise surely he must observe his own behaviour & know
he often posts mindless of periods, mindless of protocols etc !

Jan 21, 2015
There is no bonafide answer
@UbaStupid
no, there is no answer that you LIKE
there IS an answer

and the way you comment is just like a troll...
is this another attempt to redirect into the previous comments we had about lengths of a trend? or are you simply going to post cherry picked data that is not relevant again?

Jan 24, 2015
There is no bonafide answer
@UbaStupid
no, there is no answer that you LIKE
there IS an answer

and the way you comment is just like a troll...
is this another attempt to redirect into the previous comments we had about lengths of a trend? or are you simply going to post cherry picked data that is not relevant again?
Fine, prove me wrong. Provide an excerpt of this supposed answer.


Jan 25, 2015
Fine, prove me wrong. Provide an excerpt of this supposed answer.
@Uba
ok
first two words
Captain Stumpy
you SHOULD be able to read it if you search the above comments for the quoted part i am supplying here

again, i reiterate that i've answered
there is no answer that you LIKE
there IS an answer

and like a troll, you will drive this particular topic into the ground because why?

is this another attempt to redirect into the previous comments we had about lengths of a trend? or are you simply going to post cherry picked data that is not relevant again?

tell me, HOW does this directly refute the STUDIES i linked above?
you still haven't been able to do THAT yet, but you want to argue about my posts above... which any idiot can read but you seem to not want to

I am going to continue to request you provide your equivalent evidence that refutes the studies i linked
which you've failed to provide

where are those studies debunking the links i gave uba?

Jan 25, 2015
This thread still going?
Crap... are they all still trapped up there?

Jan 25, 2015
Fine, prove me wrong. Provide an excerpt of this supposed answer.
@Uba
ok
first two words
Captain Stumpy
you SHOULD be able to read it if you search the above comments for the quoted part i am supplying here
Seriously? "Captain Stumpy" - that's all you have?

Get real chatterbot. Provide the entire content, or admit you can't because it does not exist.

you will drive this particular topic into the ground because why?
It simply and effectively demonstrates you are a chatterbot - designed to lie, by liars.


Feb 19, 2015
designed to lie, by liars. @uba
not one lie there: i've been asked a question
I've answered
if you search the above for the words "captain Stumpy" you will find my argument (assuming you read all the posts that include those words)

just because you cannot read or you refuse to accept my comment doesn't mean that i didn't answer you

Sorry this is written so late, i didn't realise you had commented again

Feb 22, 2015
designed to lie, by liars.
@uba
not one lie there: i've been asked a question
I've answered
if you search the above for the words "captain Stumpy" you will find my argument (assuming you read all the posts that include those words)

just because you cannot read or you refuse to accept my comment doesn't mean that i didn't answer you

Sorry this is written so late, i didn't realise you had commented again
"Captain Stumpy" – is still all you have?

That you did not provide any of the supposed content, means you can't because it does not exist. You are a lying chatterbot - designed to lie, by liars.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more