[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Perhaps if he was less antagonistic, preventing so many irrational outbursts from sallying forth there wouldnt be a problem.
Isnt it as simple as that?
Why try to tart it up with excuses and some kind of 'victim' role play?
What has knowing something about a subject, or having an opinion about it got to do with priviledge? Why do you have to bring priviledge into this? And why associate knowledge or understanding with priviledge and then further associate it with being a prick, as you say?
Do we have to post differently because you are crossing your fingers and saying you have an (imaginary) complex?
What is spiteful about responding to the abuse GH throws out?
Bewildering post Leroy. Right up there with the best of Gooner.
I'm probably opening myself to a charge of what came first the chicken or the egg BUT from my observations Goonerhater doesn't generally start the personal stuff although he will retaliate with interest at times...
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Perhaps if he was less antagonistic, preventing so many irrational outbursts from sallying forth there wouldnt be a problem.
Isnt it as simple as that?
Why try to tart it up with excuses and some kind of 'victim' role play?
What has knowing something about a subject, or having an opinion about it got to do with priviledge? Why do you have to bring priviledge into this? And why associate knowledge or understanding with priviledge and then further associate it with being a prick, as you say?
Do we have to post differently because you are crossing your fingers and saying you have an (imaginary) complex?
What is spiteful about responding to the abuse GH throws out?
Bewildering post Leroy. Right up there with the best of Gooner.
I'm probably opening myself to a charge of what came first the chicken or the egg BUT from my observations Goonerhater doesn't generally start the personal stuff although he will retaliate with interest at times...
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Perhaps if he was less antagonistic, preventing so many irrational outbursts from sallying forth there wouldnt be a problem.
Isnt it as simple as that?
Why try to tart it up with excuses and some kind of 'victim' role play?
What has knowing something about a subject, or having an opinion about it got to do with priviledge? Why do you have to bring priviledge into this? And why associate knowledge or understanding with priviledge and then further associate it with being a prick, as you say?
Do we have to post differently because you are crossing your fingers and saying you have an (imaginary) complex?
What is spiteful about responding to the abuse GH throws out?
Bewildering post Leroy. Right up there with the best of Gooner.
I'm probably opening myself to a charge of what came first the chicken or the egg BUT from my observations Goonerhater doesn't generally start the personal stuff although he will retaliate with interest at times...
Just wait until Dave gets in Len and GH wants to burn all you capitalist bstds on Blackheath. Might change your tune then :-)
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]Perhaps if he was less antagonistic, preventing so many irrational outbursts from sallying forth there wouldnt be a problem.
Isnt it as simple as that?
Why try to tart it up with excuses and some kind of 'victim' role play?
What has knowing something about a subject, or having an opinion about it got to do with priviledge? Why do you have to bring priviledge into this? And why associate knowledge or understanding with priviledge and then further associate it with being a prick, as you say?
Do we have to post differently because you are crossing your fingers and saying you have an (imaginary) complex?
What is spiteful about responding to the abuse GH throws out?
Bewildering post Leroy. Right up there with the best of Gooner.
I'm probably opening myself to a charge of what came first the chicken or the egg BUT from my observations Goonerhater doesn't generally start the personal stuff although he will retaliate with interest at times...
Sorry Len, I completely disagree.
That does not surprise me. As I said chicken and egg.
I can only quote my perception from a few years now on this forum.
[cite]Posted By: Sussex_Addick[/cite]Tbh personal attacks will just lead to another page of 'THAT's what gets me about warmists, they attack anyone who has a different opinion' as if BFR and GH's skirmish is licence to ignore all the very good posts that there are on this thread.
Anyone thinking of padding out their posts with more 'victim' rhetoric, I'll make you a deal: I'll ignore that GH calls anyone vaguely disagreeing with him a 'Guardianista' and 'twonk' or whatever else if you don't fixate on such matters yourself, as they just distract from whatever decent debate there is left in this thread.
Textbook:
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Kept out of this for a while. That is because I only operate with facts, not seen too many, I have seen lots of personal attacks on the character of certain people on here, which is bizarre. Why is this, why criticise people for their grammar (sic) is it to deflect from the tenuous arguments you put forward? Very strange, it is not the attacks, but the vitriol attached, retard, fuck wit, etc. Why? Why do you need to do this, why attack someones grammer (sic) is that the main point here. Why attack their qualifications yet when they are shown to be correct, not apologise profusely, grovel you twat, see we can all be offensive.
Personal opinion only, but there seem to be a lot of ex communists/socialists who seem to be attaching themselves to this flag as their other opinions have been run out of town, stamped on and kicked in the gutter where they belong, discuss!
It's nice being able to be so oppressed and marginalised, because it means you can insinuate you're right without, ya know, arguing why you're right.
There's numerous excellent factual replies such as BFR on oil company astroturfing, Leroy (amongst some froth) on several scientific matters etc. and in general some solid reasoning that conspiratorial views are built on shaky evidence and in most cases just don't add up.
On the other side, the only sceptic who has actually even argued any points is Len. I don't necessarily agree with them, and feel he extrapolates rather quickly, but at least he has made points and provided links.
You were too modest to mention yourself so I will do it for you. I might not agree with you but your views are sourced and thought through with a welcome lack of personal abuse.
This is not really the medium for lengthy posts so I tend to try and keep it brief hence why I extrapolate quickly. I was taught to come straight to the point when young as well.
As an example, I'll construct my own victim style reply
The thing that gets me about these sceptics, is they're losing the argument so they throw their toys out of the pram and just yell 'Socialist! Socialist!' If you have such good reasons why you're right, why do you need the vitriol??? Why resort to personal attacks?!?!?!?! Could it possibly be that you know you're wrong and that actually your opinions are just so incredibly worthless!!!!
This must of course be true of ALL sceptics as addressing that it's a minority wouldn't allow me ignore all the decent posts that there are. Us poor 'warmists' are being silenced by the sceptics machine because they know we know the real truth!!!!!
Of course this is a load of dressed-up twaddle
!. I haven't made any points
2. I've fixated on whatever offense I can find to make myself seem oppressed
3. And I've branded absolutely everyone against me with the same brush to avoid having to address the good posts that there are
There's no points made so there's so way of replying, but yet I've given the vague impression that it's a useful post
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
This is not really the medium for lengthy posts so I tend to try and keep it brief hence why I extrapolate quickly. I was taught to come straight to the point when young as well.
[cite]Posted By: Sussex_Addick[/cite]Tbh personal attacks will just lead to another page of 'THAT's what gets me about warmists, they attack anyone who has a different opinion' as if BFR and GH's skirmish is licence to ignore all the very good posts that there are on this thread.
Anyone thinking of padding out their posts with more 'victim' rhetoric, I'll make you a deal: I'll ignore that GH calls anyone vaguely disagreeing with him a 'Guardianista' and 'twonk' or whatever else if you don't fixate on such matters yourself, as they just distract from whatever decent debate there is left in this thread.
Textbook:
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Kept out of this for a while. That is because I only operate with facts, not seen too many, I have seen lots of personal attacks on the character of certain people on here, which is bizarre. Why is this, why criticise people for their grammar (sic) is it to deflect from the tenuous arguments you put forward? Very strange, it is not the attacks, but the vitriol attached, retard, fuck wit, etc. Why? Why do you need to do this, why attack someones grammer (sic) is that the main point here. Why attack their qualifications yet when they are shown to be correct, not apologise profusely, grovel you twat, see we can all be offensive.
Personal opinion only, but there seem to be a lot of ex communists/socialists who seem to be attaching themselves to this flag as their other opinions have been run out of town, stamped on and kicked in the gutter where they belong, discuss!
It's nice being able to be so oppressed and marginalised, because it means you can insinuate you're right without, ya know, arguing why you're right.
There's numerous excellent factual replies such as BFR on oil company astroturfing, Leroy (amongst some froth) on several scientific matters etc. and in general some solid reasoning that conspiratorial views are built on shaky evidence and in most cases just don't add up.
On the other side, the only sceptic who has actually even argued any points is Len. I don't necessarily agree with them, and feel he extrapolates rather quickly, but at least he has made points and provided links.
I think I'd take exception to that Sussex. I have throughout this thread and several others on the same subject posted links and tried to argue my case in an adult, respectful way. What happens is I get told I'm thick (and much, much worse), that my links get immediately dimissed as being the result of corporate PR or just bad science where others or just ignored, as in the open letter from the respected researcher looking at sea levels in the Maldives (now long lost hundreds of posts ago).
It's funny, how "bad science" only exists where it's applied to the opposite point of view. For example I haven't seen anyone mention the recent climb down by the IPCC who came out last week and retracted a huge claim they made in relation to glacial melting which was subsequenltly found to have no scientific basis i.e cobblers.
I didn't bother posting it because the like of Leroy and BFR wouldn't respond in an appropriate way and just move on to something else.
To be honest I exclude you from the allegation around personalising things (and there others doing the same on my side of the fence of course). You seem like a sensible person who enjoys the debate, and that's great, but unfortunatly there are plenty of others out there that seem to revel in throwing their weight around and trying to belittle others. Hecne my withdrawal from this thread. Again ;-)
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]
That really is it for me on this thread now I think I'll just stick to posting on whether Dickson's the new messiah or just plain crap...
That's lasted as long as a 2 nil lead at the Valley :-)
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]
It's funny, how "bad science" only exists where it's applied to the opposite point of view. For example I haven't seen anyone mention the recent climb down by the IPCC who came out last week and retracted a huge claim they made in relation to glacial melting which was subsequenltly found to have no scientific basis i.e cobblers.
I didn't bother posting it because the like of Leroy and BFR wouldn't respond in an appropriate way and just move on to something else.
Sigh
Once again, for the hard of comprehension - individual pieces of research by the odd crackpot and seized upon by one climate advisory committee - which were never taken as widely accepted scientific evidence (and have indeed been exposed as nonsense by The New SCIENTIST), but trumped up by the meedja as part of the daily scare story about global warming/impending terrorist attacks/devastation from a stray asteroid etc etc do not in any way detract from the absolutely overwhelming body of climatological research undertaken in the past thirty years - 99.999% of which suggests that the activity of mankind has had, is having, and will continue to have a devastating effect on the global climate.
It's really not that hard to understand.
To put it into footballing terms for you - last season, had you taken about 15 seconds of each match watching Charlton where we strung three passes together, went past an opposition fullback, put a cross into the box and scored a goal*, you could postulate a theory from that 'evidence' that we were top of the league. However, any sane individual who watched the other 204630 seconds of football last season would, wuite rightly tell you that your 'evidence' was staistically irrelvant in the face of all the other 'evidence', and that your theory was, in fact, 'Bollocks'.
*Admittedly, I'm struggling to actually find ANY examples of that but there's no way I'm letting facts get in the way of a great analogy
Sussex, if you or anyone else has nothing nice or sensible to say then say nothing. As for BFR, not worth the (recycled) paper that çleans my crack. As I mentioned, anyone that reverts to personal abuse is obviously losing the argument and you lefties are digging your own pit with regards that. Anyway, carry on, I will be back with a few more facts soon for you to get all angry about. What are you guys gonna be like when your party lose the election and are out for another 20 years? Any of you care to pedant about my English or abuse me for my degree feel free, fuck wits!
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Sussex, if you or anyone else has nothing nice or sensible to say then say nothing. As for BFR, not worth the (recycled) paper that çleans my crack. As I mentioned, anyone that reverts to personal abuse is obviously losing the argument and you lefties are digging your own pit with regards that. Anyway, carry on, I will be back with a few more facts soon for you to get all angry about. What are you guys gonna be like when your party lose the election and are out for another 20 years? Any of you care to pedant about my English or abuse me for my degree feel free, fuck wits!
So I've "lost the argument" by resorting to abuse, but then you surely have lost the argument by resorting to abuse in the next sentence?!
You seem to revel in personal attacks, why? Surely you don't need to do that if you are convinced by your own arguments, or do you feel a bit fragile? As I said, I stayed out of the personal abuse for a while, but your vitriol against GH is a bit OTT don't you think? Or is this the normal reaction to a denier? It would appear to be the norm in the scientific community. Why, what have you got to hide, if it was so cast iron obvious then shut up and let the nay sayers make fools of themselves. Or are you not convinced and must attack anyone who deviates from the mantra of your climate/warming/cooling/change/freezing (delete as appropriate)?
Why the personal attacks?
You don't even know GH, you would have plenty of ammo if you did, he is actually a big fan of arsene!
There are insults and insults --- yes of course i would burn all lefty labour types on Blackeath and the fact that only the Gaurdian readers can be "right" means they go on the fire as well. Calling all of these types twonks/twats of course is either an insult or a fact ? but it is collective and not a direct insult.
Leroy thanks for the defence-ish thing (i think) but i have never felt inferior to anyone ! especially people on a chat /message board. On the other hand i have never felt supperior to anyone--- well untill i came on here and met my cyber stalker BFR. Although shame i me i do feel a tad sorry for him ---- it must be a lonely old world in cyber land.
As for the thread said upteen times there is a point or two within the huge climate agenda which i dont see how anyone could disagree , yet to actually question climate change in any form has the Labourites creaming their Yfronts (unless they have already been distracted by their cyber girlfriends).
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]You seem to revel in personal attacks, why? Surely you don't need to do that if you are convinced by your own arguments, or do you feel a bit fragile? As I said, I stayed out of the personal abuse for a while, but your vitriol against GH is a bit OTT don't you think? Or is this the normal reaction to a denier? It would appear to be the norm in the scientific community. Why, what have you got to hide, if it was so cast iron obvious then shut up and let the nay sayers make fools of themselves. Or are you not convinced and must attack anyone who deviates from the mantra of your climate/warming/cooling/change/freezing (delete as appropriate)?
Why the personal attacks?
You don't even know GH, you would have plenty of ammo if you did, he is actually a big fan of arsene!
When Gh goes OTT with personal attacks I hand a few back, but being one eyed you only choose to see the response, and now you are trying and failing to frame the debate as though I'd started it and in the process both of you get all whiny.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Sussex, if you or anyone else has nothing nice or sensible to say then say nothing
Well it is sensible, because you keep repeating exactly what I said would happen over and over in a loop. Address the BFR/GH abuse thing if you wish, but don't randomly extrapolate that out to everyone who disagrees with you as a way to avoid making actual points. Like so:
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]anyone that reverts to personal abuse is obviously losing the argument and you lefties are digging your own pit with regards that.
Say why 'lefties' are wrong, don't fixate on BFR specifically in a convenient way of being able to sidestep the issue by tarring everyone who disagrees you with the 'abuse' brush.
Leroy made a good post and a good analogy above, perhaps explain in a level headed way why he is wrong? He's not abusing or persecuting you, so now is your chance to make a compelling case without need for reference to BFR/GH, insults, silencing or whatever else.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I will be back with a few more facts soon
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Come on BFR, I had you down as a grown up, you can do better than that, can't you? Very poor!
Quite fair response from me - I'm pointing that you get a little whiny when you get attacked. However if you don't like it give gh a call, he seems to know a lot about cyber girlfriends, maybe he can help you relieve your frustration another way.
Comments
I'm probably opening myself to a charge of what came first the chicken or the egg BUT from my observations Goonerhater doesn't generally start the personal stuff although he will retaliate with interest at times...
Just wait until Dave gets in Len and GH wants to burn all you capitalist bstds on Blackheath. Might change your tune then :-)
That does not surprise me. As I said chicken and egg.
I can only quote my perception from a few years now on this forum.
Textbook:
It's nice being able to be so oppressed and marginalised, because it means you can insinuate you're right without, ya know, arguing why you're right.
There's numerous excellent factual replies such as BFR on oil company astroturfing, Leroy (amongst some froth) on several scientific matters etc. and in general some solid reasoning that conspiratorial views are built on shaky evidence and in most cases just don't add up.
On the other side, the only sceptic who has actually even argued any points is Len. I don't necessarily agree with them, and feel he extrapolates rather quickly, but at least he has made points and provided links.
You were too modest to mention yourself so I will do it for you. I might not agree with you but your views are sourced and thought through with a welcome lack of personal abuse.
This is not really the medium for lengthy posts so I tend to try and keep it brief hence why I extrapolate quickly. I was taught to come straight to the point when young as well.
The thing that gets me about these sceptics, is they're losing the argument so they throw their toys out of the pram and just yell 'Socialist! Socialist!' If you have such good reasons why you're right, why do you need the vitriol??? Why resort to personal attacks?!?!?!?! Could it possibly be that you know you're wrong and that actually your opinions are just so incredibly worthless!!!!
This must of course be true of ALL sceptics as addressing that it's a minority wouldn't allow me ignore all the decent posts that there are. Us poor 'warmists' are being silenced by the sceptics machine because they know we know the real truth!!!!!
Of course this is a load of dressed-up twaddle
!. I haven't made any points
2. I've fixated on whatever offense I can find to make myself seem oppressed
3. And I've branded absolutely everyone against me with the same brush to avoid having to address the good posts that there are
There's no points made so there's so way of replying, but yet I've given the vague impression that it's a useful post
Fair enough
I think I'd take exception to that Sussex. I have throughout this thread and several others on the same subject posted links and tried to argue my case in an adult, respectful way. What happens is I get told I'm thick (and much, much worse), that my links get immediately dimissed as being the result of corporate PR or just bad science where others or just ignored, as in the open letter from the respected researcher looking at sea levels in the Maldives (now long lost hundreds of posts ago).
It's funny, how "bad science" only exists where it's applied to the opposite point of view. For example I haven't seen anyone mention the recent climb down by the IPCC who came out last week and retracted a huge claim they made in relation to glacial melting which was subsequenltly found to have no scientific basis i.e cobblers.
Recent Times article
I didn't bother posting it because the like of Leroy and BFR wouldn't respond in an appropriate way and just move on to something else.
To be honest I exclude you from the allegation around personalising things (and there others doing the same on my side of the fence of course). You seem like a sensible person who enjoys the debate, and that's great, but unfortunatly there are plenty of others out there that seem to revel in throwing their weight around and trying to belittle others. Hecne my withdrawal from this thread. Again ;-)
Once again, for the hard of comprehension - individual pieces of research by the odd crackpot and seized upon by one climate advisory committee - which were never taken as widely accepted scientific evidence (and have indeed been exposed as nonsense by The New SCIENTIST), but trumped up by the meedja as part of the daily scare story about global warming/impending terrorist attacks/devastation from a stray asteroid etc etc do not in any way detract from the absolutely overwhelming body of climatological research undertaken in the past thirty years - 99.999% of which suggests that the activity of mankind has had, is having, and will continue to have a devastating effect on the global climate.
It's really not that hard to understand.
To put it into footballing terms for you - last season, had you taken about 15 seconds of each match watching Charlton where we strung three passes together, went past an opposition fullback, put a cross into the box and scored a goal*, you could postulate a theory from that 'evidence' that we were top of the league. However, any sane individual who watched the other 204630 seconds of football last season would, wuite rightly tell you that your 'evidence' was staistically irrelvant in the face of all the other 'evidence', and that your theory was, in fact, 'Bollocks'.
*Admittedly, I'm struggling to actually find ANY examples of that but there's no way I'm letting facts get in the way of a great analogy
So I've "lost the argument" by resorting to abuse, but then you surely have lost the argument by resorting to abuse in the next sentence?!
Try and be consistent "fuck wit"....
Why the personal attacks?
You don't even know GH, you would have plenty of ammo if you did, he is actually a big fan of arsene!
Leroy thanks for the defence-ish thing (i think) but i have never felt inferior to anyone ! especially people on a chat /message board. On the other hand i have never felt supperior to anyone--- well untill i came on here and met my cyber stalker BFR. Although shame i me i do feel a tad sorry for him ---- it must be a lonely old world in cyber land.
As for the thread said upteen times there is a point or two within the huge climate agenda which i dont see how anyone could disagree , yet to actually question climate change in any form has the Labourites creaming their Yfronts (unless they have already been distracted by their cyber girlfriends).
When Gh goes OTT with personal attacks I hand a few back, but being one eyed you only choose to see the response, and now you are trying and failing to frame the debate as though I'd started it and in the process both of you get all whiny.
You need to grow up tory boy.
Well it is sensible, because you keep repeating exactly what I said would happen over and over in a loop. Address the BFR/GH abuse thing if you wish, but don't randomly extrapolate that out to everyone who disagrees with you as a way to avoid making actual points. Like so:
Say why 'lefties' are wrong, don't fixate on BFR specifically in a convenient way of being able to sidestep the issue by tarring everyone who disagrees you with the 'abuse' brush.
Leroy made a good post and a good analogy above, perhaps explain in a level headed way why he is wrong? He's not abusing or persecuting you, so now is your chance to make a compelling case without need for reference to BFR/GH, insults, silencing or whatever else.
Good! That is exactly what is required
Quite fair response from me - I'm pointing that you get a little whiny when you get attacked. However if you don't like it give gh a call, he seems to know a lot about cyber girlfriends, maybe he can help you relieve your frustration another way.
Enjoy your evening...