Then why don’t you ban his ass already and get it over with? I mean we have a rule about one-note posters with clear single-minded agendas, don’t we? 95% of his posts on this board are on this one topic, aren’t they?
[Risking a note for saying this in a non-ATMB thread…]
Of course not, just as it is unreasonable to expect a Great Debate thread about global warming to actually be happening here.
Asking for a short paragraph on global warming/climate change is a foolish request. But of course if anyone is sincere about it, I’m always ready to repeat the exact same thing that already appears a hundred times here, in a dozen topics.
Any honest request is always answered clearly and with no rancor. It’s not hard for an informed person to state something, and as you will discover, I always use sources, rather than my opinion, when stating facts. Those who can’t be bothered to quote what they are talking about appear lazy, dishonest and most often dead wrong. It’s why they don’t quote what they are responding to.
There’s an example of a false claim, which of course has no evidence. It’s easy enough to simply link to the next several post, and respond to what you disagree with.
Which one of those meets your accusation of a “a game of bait-and-switch”? Do you have any actual evidence?
Same for your next false accusation.
Where is the attack? What do you actually mean? Because it’s simple and easy and false to make shit up, it’s actually effort to argue your point. Try it sometime.
My position on what? When this first came up, like 3,855 posts ago, I was indeed sarcastic (and very very funny) when I simply repeated stupid shit that global warmers have actually said.
Then when there was blanket refusal to state the theory of global warming, as well as a bunch of time wasting weaseling and avoidance, I simply stated the theory, so everyone could understand it.
Of course even that didn’t make any difference. Here’s where the question is asked.
And of course nobody answered, least of all GIGOgalloper, who avoided it like anything. Which is exactly why I was being sarcastic.
Of course I gave up that idiot shtick knowing full well nobody was going to state the theory. So I stated it, along with some other crap.
So there is clear concise answer.
Not that it will make the slightest difference of course.
Typical. Your claim of a defense is pointing at posts 20, 25, 26, and 28 in a totally different thread than the one to which you linked that I pointed out began a bait-and-switch dance in post #716.
So I made a mistake about which thread. You still haven’t provided anything. It’s a pattern. Instead of responding to what is on the page, you make things up, and provide no evidence.
Had you actually followed the path that I noted (which is still there in my post), instead of “conveniently” making a “mistake,” you could review exactly what I described and then invent a new explanation for what “really” was posted and see whether anyone agrees with your tale.
If you care so very much, just show us what you are talking about. Vague generalities is the realm of the climate alarmist, not science. From the great debate thread, where you tried to sidetrack the debate into a personal matter.
You seem to think attacking something false or misleading is an attack on a person. Yet you engage in personal slander, it’s ironic.
If you actually read the thread, you would know my stand on arguing over this .
I do not recall accusing you of attacking posters, only of making snide comments. However, if I have accused you of personal attacks, it would have been in response to personal attacks, not to challenges to arguments. As to your silly claims of “slander” [sic], the other posters can actually read what each of us has posted. I’ll just let you keep flapping away, here.
I wouldn’t wait on a response. When somebody is trying to be understood, and make a point, they are quite happy to quote and cite what they are talking about. Vague unsubstantiated claims are the hallmark of woo woos, who hate specific and clear debates. Even when directly asked, they twist and turn, and at all cost avoid making a claim that can be investigated.
If there was an actual example, why not just use it?
The irony of it all.
Called on what? Of course we can’t tell, because there is no quote, and certainly no specific claim. That is idiocy, and one reason I am so sarcastic.
It’s not hard to quote somebody, and then comment. For example, in the thread in which some idiot claims I attacked people, post 7 says
See? It’s easy to show people what you mean, what you are speaking of.
What post of mine attacks anyone in the thread? Just quote it. Because making shit up and not providing sources is ignorant.
How that for a clear and understandable post? Anyone having trouble following?
Now isn’t that ironic? Considering the current winter? Sea ice on Long Island, records broken for cold and snow, it’s like Mother Nature has a sense of humor.
(unless you are in California, where it’s not funny at all)
And, as we see, here, FXMastermind has chosen not to quote or cite what he is talking about, quoting only out of context phrases, instead. Again he provides his own best example of what he claims to criticize.
In that thread, somebody asked me to present two facts supporting “the AGW argument”, which was actually a sidetrack and off topic, but even so, I asked them to define what they meant by “the AGW argument”. They simply refused to answer.
In fact, they insisted I define it. My response is easy to comprehend.
See how easy it is to use a cite to explain your point? Why would anyone evade and avoid just saying what they are talking about?
I let a realtor talk me into painting my grass green when I was listing a home in Portland in July (when, without sprinklers, lawns inevitably turn brown).