| Ron Purvis 2006-03-31, 12:21 am |
| "Solar Flare" <sfart@hottomale.invalid> wrote in message
news:dpOdnfa1m8Y3BLHZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@golden.net...
> It is one of the only true deserts on our planet. This means no
> vegetation. The precipitation was only created to make a borderline.
> It doesn't matter how much precipitation falls in Antartica, nothing
> is going to grow there. Again an avoidance of select facts to support
> arguments.
>
Wrong again. First, I didn't avoid any facts. You challenged what Daestrom
had said, and I gave you an actual definition of a desert and a site to show
that Antartica is a desert. No one but an ignorant troll could decide that
is being selective. Second, you can't change how the rest of the world
defines a desert just because you don't have a clue to what you are talking
about. The definition of a desert is what I told you. If you don't like it,
that is too bad. Third, you are again totally wrong on the assumption that
nothing is going to grow there. There are a number of plants that grow along
the coasts. These range from moss and lichens to flowering plants.
For those who want to see some of those things that SolarFlare thinks can't
grow there, please see
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_A...ldlife/Plants/. I believe
this puts Antartica in the little vegatation category and not the no
vegatation category.
> "Ron Purvis" <ronpurvis@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:y3%Wf.377$SL6.144@fe02.lga...
> an arid
> a desert
> of
> less than
> is only
> equivalent of
> http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antar...0Antarctica.htm
> hypothetical
> there.
> has built
>
>
|