T1B

You're completely wrong, as usual.

The inclusion by Dins was actually valid. Some reputable sources do consider that fungus of his to be the LLO. My inclusion of the aspens in Utah is also given credence, by many reputable sources.

Reason being, nobody disputes they are in fact LO. The question is whether they truly fit the definition of a "single" living organism.

Meanwhile, the GS is most often cited as being the LLO, because its status as a single living organism is not in doubt.

Your blue whale inclusion? That was just stupid, because you were attempting to dispute the fact that the GS is a single living organism. You then made it worse by saying it doesn't matter what biologists say, YOU consider the blue whale to be a larger LO than the GS. Your entire premise was stupid but setting yourself up as the sole contrary voice, as proof that not everybody agrees with me, THAT argument was just plain ridiculous.

Van wrote: The inclusion by Dins was actually valid. Some reputable sources do consider that fungus of his to be the LLO. My inclusion of the aspens in Utah is also given credence, by many reputable sources.

This is your problem Van. Someplace somewhere someone taught you what to think, not how to think. I don't care if someone has embraced my conclusion as long as my facts are straight and they are. Here watch...

Reason being, nobody disputes they are in fact LO. The question is whether they truly fit the definition of a "single" living organism.

No the question was largest LO. What does largest mean? Mass? Surface Are? (I meant to type 'Area' sorry about that. )

Meanwhile, the GS is most often cited as being the LLO, because its status as a single living organism is not in doubt.

Sure but how much is living? Please tell me you knew how a tree grows and that most of the weight of an older tree is dead wood and bark. Tell me you didn't learn that from me.

Your blue whale inclusion? That was just stupid, because you were attempting to dispute the fact that the GS is a single living organism.

This is what is so stupid about your obsession with my typos. You can't even read what I write and yet you obsess on typos? I never said that the GS was not a single LO all I said was it is not made up of as much living tissue as you might think.

You then made it worse by saying it doesn't matter what biologists say, YOU consider the blue whale to be a larger LO than the GS. Your entire premise was stupid but setting yourself up as the sole contrary voice, as proof that not everybody agrees with me, THAT argument was just plain ridiculous.

Not one botanist will tell you that the GS's weight is 100% or even mostly living tissue. Draw your own conclusions about it's status as the LLO, but at least get your facts straight.

Not one botanist or marine biologist will deny that the GS is a living organism, a single living organism, and that it's a larger living organism than the blue whale.

That's all there is to it. That was the debate we were having.

Your argument is simply a means to blow yourself. You simply want to include your little useless factoid about tissue type. That was your only motivation in posting.

Again, strip off all that "dead" bark. Cut a deep fissure into that "dead" wood, all the way around. See if that tree continues to live.

Van wrote:Not one botanist or marine biologist will deny that the GS is a living organism, a single living organism,

Italics it all you want but 'single' was never the word that I was hung up on. That's you.

and that it's a larger living organism than the blue whale.

Listen up you stupid simple shit. No scientist of ANY kind even uses words like 'largest.' We use words like mass and volume and surface are. (Sorry i meant to type 'area' again)

You simply want to include your little useless factoid about tissue type.

Tissue type? You mean like the difference between alive and dead tissue in relation to a question about the largest LIVING organism? Yes Van that is a useless factoid.

That was your only motivation in posting.

So you're saying my only motivation was to add facts to the thread? Shame on me!

Cut a deep fissure into that "dead" wood, all the way around. See if that tree continues to live.

Strip off most of the outer layer of the bark and hollow out most of the wood inside and see if it lives. So what? Thanks for showing us what a TRUELY useless factoid looks like.

A-YOU'RE not a scientist, so don't use the expression "we" when speaking of scientists.

B-Substitute "volume" or "mass" for "larger," if you wish. It won't change the result. Botanists and marine biologists ALL agree that the GS has greater volume, greater mass, is larger, and is just plain ol' bigger and way more ginormous than any blue whale.

Besides, I already quoted them, a long time ago, using their "volume" and "mass" definitions. I provided the same basic quote mvscal gave you.

You're really going nowhere here, with all this pointless minutiae. Keep spinning, it won't change a thing. Your definition is purely self serving. Nobody gives a shit about your attempt to change the playing field. You remain...wrong.

Btw, in the future, see if you can at least avoid misspelling those words you wish to emphasize, by putting them in all caps. It truly makes you look lazy, for not bothering to learn how to spell, if not downright stupid.

Van wrote:A-YOU'RE not a scientist, so don't use the expression "we" when speaking of scientists.

B-Substitute "volume" or "mass" for "larger," if you wish. It won't change the result. Botanists and marine biologists ALL agree that the GS has greater volume, greater mass, is larger, and is just plain ol' bigger and way more ginormous than any blue whale.

Besides, I already quoted them, a long time ago, using their "volume" and "mass" definitions. I provided the same basic quote mvscal gave you.

You're really going nowhere here, with all this pointless minutiae. Keep spinning, it won't change a thing. Your definition is purely self serving. Nobody gives a shit about your attempt to change the playing field. You remain...wrong.

Btw, in the future, see if you can at least avoid misspelling those words you wish to emphasize, by putting them in all caps. It truly makes you look lazy, for not bothering to learn how to spell, if not downright stupid.

Pretty much everything else makes him look downright stupid. There's no need to go to spelling smack.

I have a few questions for our resident botanist.

Is a GS an organism?

What would happen if you whittled out all that "dead" stuff in the middle? I am guessing that it would collapse and die. So, I suppose that makes it an integral part of the organism, don't it?

Van wrote:A-YOU'RE not a scientist, so don't use the expression "we" when speaking of scientists.

What the fuck do you know about it? I have a working knowledge of the scientific method and I have used said method many times to prove or disprove hypothesis. Hell I even have a degree, like that matters. Just because YOU are too stupid to be one doesn’t mean I am.

Botanists and marine biologists ALL agree that the GS has greater volume, greater mass, is larger, and is just plain ol' bigger and way more ginormous than any blue whale.

Ginormous? How sciency of you. Oh and the living tissue of a BW weighs more than the LT of the GS. Try and grasp the concept you stupid fuckhole.

Nobody gives a shit about your attempt to change the playing field.

AGAIN you idiots were trying to figure out just what the definition of the LLO was. That was fine. As soon as I tried to expand your horizon a bit you clapped down like mvskkkal on a black cock.. Why? Because you are a narrow minded asshole.

Btw, in the future, see if you can at least avoid misspelling those words you wish to emphasize, by putting them in all caps. It truly makes you look lazy, for not bothering to learn how to spell, if not downright stupid.

You just couldn’t help from being a pud could you? You are such a petty assfuck that you just could help yourself even though you have been raked over the coals on this issue for the past few days.
God you are a tard.

smackaholic wrote:What would happen if you whittled out all that "dead" stuff in the middle?

So it is dead? You're learning, good show.

I am guessing that it would collapse and die.

You're guessing. How quaint.

So, I suppose that makes it an integral part of the organism, don't it?

Yes and no. If you get rid of ALL of it then there is nothing to protect the vascular tissue and the organism dies, but you can hollow the fuck out of one of these trees and it will still stand. The tree needs a very small percentage of it's dead wood to survive and can take a big hit to it's VT and still survive. You've seen the Wawona tree tunnel? You could bore a hole way up that fucker before it fell.

Any other questions you stupid racist cocknozzle?

Hey, sweet, he put "cocknozzle" back into play...

Van wrote:Hey, sweet, he put "cocknozzle" back into play...

How sweet you waved another white flag.

Do you get tired of getting your ass handed to you?

Okay, I get it. This would be another one of those instances where it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Whether it's the scientific community, or just the people on this board, everyone agrees: You've again gotten shithammered, all across the board.

Doesn't matter, though. You see it differently, so it just...is.

Whatever floats your boat.

Van wrote: Whether it's the scientific community,

Who all agree that GS is mostly dead? Those people?

just the people on this board

Proof of nothing, other than they are as stupid as you.

You see it differently, so it just...is.

You really are a dumbass. It's not how I see it that counts, it's what I can show it true. Everything I posted was true and you were just too dumb or stubborn to realize/admit it.

Go stick that white flag up your ass you tent folding fuckhead.

Larger living organism, Bitter One? The GS, or a blue whale? Which is it?

"Larger?"
Again... How sciency of you.

Answer the question, and substitute "greatest mass" or "greatest volume," if you prefer. It's not like you're a scientist, so it shouldn't matter. The question is clear, and it still stands.

Once you attempt your usual dodge your stupid narcissism will again be laid bare, for all to see.

Answer the question.

Van wrote:Answer the question, and substitute "greatest mass"...

Asked and answered in the original thread, with math I might add.

Now I have a question for you. What constitutes being a scientist?

Answer the question. You didn't answer it in the other thread, you merely attempted to change it.

A scientist is a person who practices and investigates science. A scientist is a person who inherently understands that the GS is a larger living organism than a blue whale, including greater mass and volume.

You're not a scientist, not unless there's a science dedicated to coming up with various ways of using the words "fuck," "cock" and "racist" in unclever insults. You're certainly no scientist of biology.

Van wrote:Answer the question. You didn't answer it in the other thread, you merely attempted to change it.

Are you really going to make me find the thread and shove my answer up your ass?

A scientist is a person who practices and investigates science.

Then I am a scientist.

A scientist is a person who inherently understands that the GS is a larger living organism than a blue whale, including greater mass and volume.

Now your just being a dick, not that it's much of a change for you.

Without spinning it, answer the question. How many times do I have to ask? If you've already answered it, and it wasn't some bullshit "percentage of living tissue" answer, then I'm unaware of it. Go ahead and C&P it for me, or just type it again.

Van wrote: If you've already answered it, and it wasn't some bullshit "percentage of living tissue" answer, then I'm unaware of it.

You've already buried your head in the sand I see.
I laid out my position, with math included, if you don't like it fine. Go with the big assed mushroom then.

Your math didn't include the % of a blue whale which is merely dead water, so it was incomplete at best, and still asinine anyway.

Scientists are uncertain as to whether that big ass mushroom really is one continuous organism; nor can they possibly answer such a question. They also can't definitively answer the question as to the continuous root structure of that aspen grove in Utah. That being the case, there is no debate about the GS, so I'll just stick with that one, as do most scientists.

Jsc810 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:fuckchip

I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I don't think I like it.

Try to think outside the box. Imagine it's Jesscia Biel rather than TBO saying it. This could easily turn out to be a win-win situation for you.

Van wrote: That being the case, there is no debate about the GS, so I'll just stick with that one, as do most scientists.

You do that. I'll use my brain to come to my own conclusions.

I think I'm comfortable with those two choices.