Crappy, but I always assumed (nice drop) he was handicapped, or (evil drop) an idiot.
Posted on a keyboard that cost me a big $3.98 American. Which replaced a keyboard that I also paid $3.98 for, but spilled on. Which replaced the original keyboard that Compaq paid $3.98 for, which I fell on. And they will all be replaced with an original AT keyboard (Generally known as the Greatest Keyboard Ever, though I’m a sucker for the XT keyboard’s feel. Jesus Himself uses an AT keyboard. God would, too, except He’s old and can’t type and has an archangel handle His email.) when I find all the keycaps.
Heffalump and Roo, do not dwell on a single post with this character. You are playing his game now that most of us are refusing to play. Look at several of his GD threads or the one Hostile Dialect mentioned and you will see his style of debating is deceitful to be kind.
I’ll say this for Brazil Nut, I hate the poster but he is really good at what he does. I would say he might even be a professional. As in a professional Astroturfer.
You may be right, but just out of curiosity. . . if you agreed with his point of view, would you be as vehemently opposed to his debate strategy? Have you ever found yourself to be on his side in an argument?
Not on AGW but occasionally in other threads. Still there are some posters you don’t want on your side of a debate. He is one of the best examples.
It is similar to Ralphie on the Kennedy Clan. I don’t like or respect them much either, but in the threads where he just repeats tired old ULs and false factoids you really feel uncomfortable debating on the same side.
However if you think about, I often strongly disagree with **PRR **and Der Trihs and yet I defend them and consider **PRR **a friend. So I don’t think you are on the right tact here. You know I have had some major run ins with **Liberal **but most of the time we get along fine.
None of these posters do what Brazil does time and again and apparently not just in AGW threads. He is using his skills to defend **PRR **in fact in another pit thread. I have only glanced at it but it looks like he is up to his normal tricks. I was surprised to see him in there and I guess I am glad someone is defending **PRR **but with help like Brazil’s **PRR **might be worse off for it.
Scientific Research: “There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change… Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.”
brazil84: "For one thing, [the] quote says NOTHING about warming. Nor does it specifically mention CO2. The CAGW hypothesis is a specific, narrow claim. It would be easy enough to endorse that hypothesis in explicit terms, rather than vague statements about “environmental change” or “urgency.”
Rather than come right out and claim that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming which took place before the turn of the century, whoever drafted that quote merely insinuated it by juxtaposing a sentence about human activities and environmental change with a sentence about greenhouse gases."
You wouldn’t call that very specifically ignoring what research says by pretending to not understand accepted terminology?
I’m not asking him to use the terminology that the rest of the world uses. I was pointing out that he’ll ignore anything which doesn’t specifically define their terminology in terms that are acceptable to him.
To give a simpler example than the Newtonian Theory of Gravity example I gave in the other thread:
Imagine that you’re a baseball geek. You bring up a few cites showing the total number of bunts that have ever been made. Now I come along and say that there have only been five bunts in all of history because I could only find one cite that specified what a bunt is and it only chronicled five bunts. Certainly all of those other cites that you provided said they were talking about something called a “bunt” but they might have meant something entirely different.
Regardless that you and everyone else in the world knows that “bunting” is an accepted term that doesn’t need to be specifically defined at the top of anything you ever write about it, and regardless that I’ve spent the last year talking in 20+ threads about bunting in baseball, I will henceforth pretend to not understand that bunting is a sufficiently recognized and accepted term among everyone, and unless you can prove that a particular paper did mean bunting as I understand it, I can’t accept it as evidence for your side.
I actually don’t engage with this poster any more because of his or her dishonest conduct.
In a debate over high speed rail in California, I expressed skepticism that the proposed high speed rail line in California would attract a lot of customers. Hostile Dialect insisted I had expressed certainty that the rail line would be unsuccesful. I pointed out that I had clearly indicated I was “skeptical,” and asked Hostile Dialect to back up his or her claim with a quote. Of course he or she could not, and instead made vague references to the “tone and timbre” of my arguments.
Me: I’ve always found driving to be faster and more convenient than taking the train. . . . I’ve spent a lot more hours of my life (proportionately) stuck waiting in airports and train stations than hours stuck in traffic on the road (for inter-city travel).
Hostile Dialect: Clearly, you’ve never driven from Anaheim to San Francisco. . . Clearly, you have not lived in California and had relatives in other parts of California.
**Me:**Actually I have lived in California (Bay Area; Central Valley; and Los Angeles) and traveled by car many times between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. It was never a problem, although it’s possible that I was not travelling at the peak times.
Let me ask you this: In your view, how long would it take to drive from Woodland Hills to Hayward on a typically congested weekend? Yahoo maps says it takes 5 hours and 20 minutes . . . . how much time is added by typical weekend congestion? Given the sparse population of most of the area between, I doubt it adds very much. But I would like to hear your estimate.
Hostile Dialect: Fuck if I know. I live in San Diego and haven’t been north of Bakersfield (on this coast, anyway). I also spend very little time in LA and have only been there a handful of times. Nor do I have any idea where Woodland Hills or Hayward are (more specifically than “kinda near LA” and “Bay Area”, respectively).
I’m not on any tact here. You read more into what I wrote than I meant.
I was just asking because I’ve noticed that people who hold unpopular views here are many of the ones named in this thread. Since I don’t hang out in GD much, perhaps there are reasons that I don’t know about, but it does seem coincidental that people who have unpopular views show up more often in “hate lists” than others.
I also think that it’s human nature to overlook some lapses in logic in regards to arguments with which you agree. It’s really hard to be objective when one holds strong views about something. But I’m certainly not pointing to you as having more or less of this tendency than anyone else.
Well as I said, **Der Trihs **who I agree with as often as Brazil does not bug me anywhere near as much and is not on my hate or even dislike list. **Shodan **is another one. I find myself disagreeing with him most of the time but I am still glad he is here. I can add **Clothahump **to this list and many others.
For me it is not unpopular views; it is I guess the way the poster posts and interacts with other posters. Brazil is generally dishonest whereas I am quite sure Der Trihs believes the stuff that makes me often see much redder than Brazil’s misinformation. Der Trihs makes me think and sometimes see his side though it is tough on his military flames as I am a vet. Brazil just wearies me as I am fearful some will believe what he posts and repeat his talking points.
I don’t think I read anything too much into your post, maybe I chose the wrong word. But what you just posted is what I thought you were trying to say with the earlier post. Does tact have a negative connotation I am not aware of? At least other than the fact I use the wrong word anyway. I think I meant something more like track, but that does seem quite right either. Sorry.
Not to be pedantic or anything (plus I think highly of both you guys (or girl in HaR’s case?) but I think the word you want is tack ([url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tack[2]).
Yes, thank you, proof it is past my bedtime. Thanks Starving Artist, it was bothering me. (As you can see from the ramble at the bottom of my last post.)
Embarrassing as I am a sailor that I could not summon up the correct word. :smack:
Not to be pedantic or anything (plus I think highly of both you guys (or girl in HaR’s case?) but I think the word you want is tack (course or method of action).
I note that liar boy is still unable to QUOTE this supposed misinformation.
By the way, if liar boy actually points out some fact that I got wrong, I will thank him for it and modify my position accordingly. Just like I did here with another poster.
For me, it was neither. I just repeated the word that he did.
**
What Exit?**, I’ll need to get back to you on this. Sorry. My brain is also too tired to process the point understandably.
Starving Artist, thanks for the kind words.
btw, you blasted me in a Pit thread a long time ago. At the time, I was too busy to respond. But my memory is long and I’ll be looking for another opportunity. Just wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten, and that I’m looking forward to it.
I’ll look forward to seeing what you come up with.
But for now, thanks for the good word. (And you too, What Exit?.)
P.S. - I’ve been away from this thread for a while and only just now noticed that I posted the tack info twice. I hope it doesn’t look like I was insisting. I noticed that the link was broken and tried to fix it within the edit window and apparently resubmitted instead.
Even though you’re kind of annoying me right now, I find that I must respect you because I have an unhealthy love for Mr. Brian Regan. Oh, to have invented the “blank inside” cards or to be driving a trailer full of show horses!
