# So, that intention guy is kinda stupid, huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865 "2009-11-17T02:23:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/61 "2009-11-17T21:33:36Z")
What’s the impact factor of _Energy and Environment_? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/62 "2009-11-17T21:54:12Z")
So how’d you vote for Obama if you live in Tuvalu, just out of curiosity? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/63 "2009-11-17T22:07:48Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What’s the impact factor of _Energy and Environment_? ISI, the academic database organization that calculates impact factor and other journal rankings, doesn’t include Energy and Environment in its portfolio of academic journals. Nobody publishes in [E&E](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment) unless the paper won’t stand up to review at a real journal. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/64 "2009-11-17T22:16:29Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > ISI, the academic database organization that calculates impact factor and other journal rankings, doesn’t include Energy and Environment in its portfolio of academic journals. Yeah, I couldn’t find it there either, so I thought I’d go to the horse’s mouth. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/65 "2009-11-17T22:17:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Yeah, I couldn’t find it there either, so I thought I’d go to the horse’s mouth. If you wanna go to the other end of the horse I might suggest asking Intention. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/66 "2009-11-17T22:18:32Z")
> [@](#): > > E&E published a paper on sea level rise at Tuvalu by X, an amateur scientist and “Construction Manager” for the Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji. Hmmm, I might be reading this wrong. Is X is none other than Intention? Discrediting sealevel rises due to AGW could hurt Tuvalu. As well as any other small Pacific islands which will also be impacted. Fiji on the other hand, is large, and might stand to gain where other Pacific places lose. If the above statements are true we need to be talking less about the canard of **environmental scientists** not being disinterested! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/67 "2009-11-17T22:28:40Z")
The Wikipedia take on it is: > **[Energy & Environment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment)** > > Energy & Environment is an academic journal "covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use". Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers. Yiu Fai Tsang became its editor-in-chief in May 2017. > The journal is abstracted and indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, EBSCO databases, Current Contents/Social & Beha... > [@](#): > > …he journal takes a skeptical view towards climate change. Skeptics on the journal’s editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, and Willie Soon. > > When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, “I’m following my political agenda – a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”[6] > > Some of the journal’s articles opposing the scientific consensus on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton… I am appropriately impressed by the scientific rigor and integrity of this publication, but find myself wondering about their funding. Somebody writes checks so that they may continue to exist. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/68 "2009-11-17T22:54:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So how’d you vote for Obama if you live in Tuvalu, just out of curiosity? Man, you are the king of misconceptions. A) I wasn’t living in Tuvalu, I was living in Fiji. B) They have this new invention called the “absentee ballot”. It’s an amazing thing, you can actually vote without having to be in the country. Google is your friend. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/69 "2009-11-17T22:58:06Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > ISI, the academic database organization that calculates impact factor and other journal rankings, doesn’t include Energy and Environment in its portfolio of academic journals. > > Nobody publishes in [E&E](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment) unless the paper won’t stand up to review at a real journal. 😃 I can verify that. I looked in both JCR Science edition **AND** even JCR Social Science edition. No Energy and Environment. But I’m just an elitist expecting scientists to be the ones doing science and publishing in real peer-reviewed science journals. I do notice in the other thread in GD that he did write a brief communication arising in Nature where he discusses a paper from a group of scientists who actually did research. He accuses them of missing data and splicing temperatures from two different stations together. Then he says that the data should be fit by a gaussian average instead of a trend line. So he actually fit the data himself! Phew, that’s some heavy duty research there. And now he’s a published author in Nature. Instant credentials! ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/70 "2009-11-17T23:06:15Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Hmmm, I might be reading this wrong. Is X is none other than Intention? Discrediting sealevel rises due to AGW could hurt Tuvalu. As well as any other small Pacific islands which will also be impacted. Fiji on the other hand, is large, and might stand to gain where other Pacific places lose. > > If the above statements are true we need to be talking less about the canard of **environmental scientists** not being disinterested! Man, this cracked me up. You are really reaching on this one. Did you actually read my article? In it I point out: 1. There is no evidence of a sea level rise due to AGW. The rate of rise has not increased, in fact in recent years it has decreased. 2. Coral atolls “float” on the ocean surface, going up and down with the sea level. Don’t like that? Blame Charles Darwin. 3. Since there is no increase in sea level rise, and atolls float, the “small Pacific islands” will be less impacted than people claim. How you can twist this to Fiji’s gain, I haven’t a clue. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/71 "2009-11-17T23:07:32Z")
You obviously have not read my post. I will reply to these questions when you have shown sufficient comprehension of it. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/72 "2009-11-17T23:13:55Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I agree. I used to read the early threads between **JShore** and **intention** with great interest; following all the links posted and even searching for more evidence to support what one or the other was saying. Those threads were among the more interesting and educational threads present on the Dope, and I was always checked to see if there was a debate occurring between the two. Then I started to notice some things about the debates which, over a year or two, made me decide that he was full of shit: > [ul] > [li]He would never concede any point, no matter how well it was researched and documented. If the presented evidence was overwhelming, he would move on to the next argument without ever acknowledging that a point had been made.[/li][li]He would draw sweeping conclusions based on the slightest evidence while roundly denouncing the opposition for making tiny assumptions in reaching a tentative conclusion.[/li][li]He would ignore or even deny basic physics, even though it was sufficient to explain observed phenomena, in favor of exotic or convoluted explanations that did not hold up under scrutiny. When these were demolished, he would just come up with another exotic or convoluted explanation without ever addressing why he wouldn’t accept the basic, well established, physics (which was sufficient to explain the phenomena).[/li][li]He would criticize the opposition for appealing to authority (not really understanding the fallacy), while committing the fallacy himself in a ridiculous way. Specifically, when discussing scientific consensus he would claim that just because x number of scientists signed the IPCC and every major scientific organization accepted the premise of AGW, doesn’t make it correct. While this is true (though this is not what is being argued), he then states that AGW must be false because there is a list of 700 odd scientists that don’t believe in it (never mind that the overwhelming majority are in fields that have nothing to do with climate science).[/li][li]He regularly cherry picks data and claims that a single measurement or a few limited cases invalidates decades of measurement and investigation.[/li][li]He misrepresents content from publications to bolster his arguments and ignores it when it is pointed out to him.[/li][/ul]After a while, it was like he wasn’t even trying anymore. He started to adopt the debating styles of posters like **Brazil84** , and it was all down hill from there. These days, a typical argument goes something like this: > **intention** : AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years). > **response** : A is true, but A (localized, short term, cooling) does not invalidate AGW. Also A has been shown to be caused by x (say increased clouds due to rising ocean temperatures or something) by scientists in these studies (x, y, z). > **intention** : Thank you for responding. AGW is false because A and B (where B is something like increasing temperatures on Uranus). > **response** : Look, we already covered A, why can’t you concede the point? Did I stutter? Is there a flaw with the studies I linked to? Regarding B, you are wrong. Reports of rising temperature on Uranus was actually a misrepresentation of what was happening on this popular niche porn site (cite). Anyway, there are these 5 studies (u, v, x, y, z) that show that Uranus, or for that matter any other planet besides Earth, has not been warming. > **intention** : Thanks for your response, but AGW is false because of A and B, and anyway there was scientific consensus in the 1940s that the earth was in imminent danger of entering another ice age. > **response** : Hello, is this thing on? Why are you still talking about A and B? And this argument about an imminent ice age was only made by one scientist while he was trying to come up with a possible scenario that would explain the book Dune in a during an interview in Popular Science (cite). Nobody really believed that, in fact here are a bunch of articles showing exactly the opposite: s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z. > **intention** : Thank you for your response, I find these debates very pleasurable. The models used by the IPCC scientists don’t properly take into account the albedo of walrus spit, and thus it is clear that the earth has been cooling due to increased insolation. > **response** : Wait, that is not even logical. The models have been tested, but even if you are right that doesn’t mean that AGW is wrong as a theory or that the earth is cooling. And anyway, there have been a bunch of studies showing that insolation has not increased. Look at the studies linked above (s, t, v and w). > **intention** : Thank you for your continued involvement in this debate. Gore takes first class flights! Also B. > **response** : Wah? > **intention** : Thank you for your measured response. Nutare (a publication put out by Russian Academy of Truck Drivers) put out this list of 550 veterinarians that don’t believe in AGW, yet other, equally prestiges publications like Science and the International Journal of Climatology won’t publish this work by these highly educated professionals because Al Gore is fellating them. AGW is not only wrong, but a conspiracy by the 234,000 scientists to make money so they can fly first class with Al Gore. This combined with the fact that A=A should be convincing enough even to the village idiot that AGW is completely without merit. > **response** : Please stop! I’m begging you! > **intention** : Thank you, it is always a pleasure debating with you. AGW is false because A (where A is something like the fact that Northern Ireland cooled over the 2 years). > response: Shoots self. > > Note for those mods or mod-wannabes lacing up your jack boots: the above interaction is a parody and does not contain real quotes by **intention** or any other poster. If you think I a falsely attributing these quotes to him, get a fucking grip and switch to decaf. Much of the above can also be found in [this thread about extinction rates](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=456063). That was the first, and last, time I chose to get involved in a debate with him. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/73 "2009-11-17T23:18:46Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > 😃 > > I can verify that. I looked in both JCR Science edition **AND** even JCR Social Science edition. No Energy and Environment. But I’m just an elitist expecting scientists to be the ones doing science and publishing in real peer-reviewed science journals. > > I do notice in the other thread in GD that he did write a brief communication arising in Nature where he discusses a paper from a group of scientists who actually did research. He accuses them of missing data and splicing temperatures from two different stations together. Then he says that the data should be fit by a gaussian average instead of a trend line. So he actually fit the data himself! Phew, that’s some heavy duty research there. And now he’s a published author in Nature. Instant credentials! Look, I’m not claiming to be anything other than an amateur scientist who has had a few papers published. You can attack me for that all you want, it seems to distract you from actually discussing the ideas I put forward. I notice that not a single one of you has had the balls to dispute a single idea I put forth in the three papers I’ve had published. Instead, you all want to whine about anything but the science. Any distraction will do, whether my ideas were published in places you approve of, whether I used gaussian averaging, anything but actually discuss the ideas. I do not hide my name as you do, I point you to my work, and you go “Not good enough, ISI doesn’t list the journal, the Nature piece was a Communications arising, you don’t think Obama is without flaw, we don’t like your debating style”, the list goes on and on, you’ll do anything to avoid facing the issues I raise. At the end of the day, you keep raging at me, and accusing me of being a “conspiracy theorist”, saying I’m a horse’s ass, and doing anything other than to actually discuss my ideas … but Nature thought my ideas were good enough to publish. Sneer at that all you want, but Nature thought they were good enough, despite the fact that you think I’m an idiot and laugh and sneer. Why am I not surprised? Who among you has the balls to reveal your name and your work and where it has been published so that we can discuss it? A bunch of cowards hiding behind your anonymity. Who among you has the nerve to step up to the plate as I have done? I’ve put it all out there for you to examine, my name, my published work, my blog posts … do any of you have the guts to do that? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/74 "2009-11-17T23:40:19Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Why am I not surprised? Who among you has the balls to reveal your name and your work and where it has been published so that we can discuss it? A bunch of cowards hiding behind your anonymity. Who among you has the nerve to step up to the plate as I have done? I’ve put it all out there for you to examine, my name, my published work, my blog posts … do any of you have the guts to do that? Meh. I already mentioned that one should not trust anyone on a message board, this is why I consider cites the most important thing, and what I see is still that your cites do resort to call scientists hoaxers (Inhofe) and full of cherry picker accusation backpedalers (McIntyre) that at the end of the day still lie that things like the hockey stick were debunked. What is clear is that you are not willing to dismiss those sources, but to reuse them again and again. And so we can only deduce that you can not be trusted as you are not capable of realizing that your “champions” are not honest. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/75 "2009-11-18T00:06:59Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Why am I not surprised? Who among you has the balls to reveal your name and your work and where it has been published so that we can discuss it? A bunch of cowards hiding behind your anonymity. Who among you has the nerve to step up to the plate as I have done? I’ve put it all out there for you to examine, my name, my published work, my blog posts … do any of you have the guts to do that? Speaking for myself, I’m going to remain gutlessly anonymous. I come here to express my opinion as freely as possible and would like to keep things that way. As it turns out, I’m on the ISI highly cited researchers list, but not in the climate sciences, so my vita is irrelevant on this particular topic anyway. I wish however that you would quit describing your publications as “papers.” They don’t seem to be what I would consider to be papers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and maybe things are different in the climate sciences than what I am used to. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/76 "2009-11-18T00:32:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh. > > I already mentioned that one should not trust anyone on a message board, this is why I consider cites the most important thing, and what I see is still that your cites do resort to call scientists hoaxers (Inhofe) and full of cherry picker accusation backpedalers (McIntyre) that at the end of the day still lie that things like the hockey stick were debunked. > > What is clear is that you are not willing to dismiss those sources, but to reuse them again and again. And so we can only deduce that you can not be trusted as you are not capable of realizing that your “champions” are not honest. I don’t care where something is published. I only care if it is true. If Moses brought you the tablets of stone, you’d complain that they weren’t peer reviewed, or that Inhofe referred to the Ten Commandments on his site. I did not link to Inhofe’s site. I linked to a PDF containing over 700 quotes by a wide variety of scientists. There is nothing to discuss there except the quotations and their validity or lack of validity. If you don’t think that they are valid, fine, show us where … but whether Inhofe calls scientists “hoaxers” does not affect the validity of the quotations in the slightest. Not in any way. But nooooo, you don’t want to touch the idea that there are eminent scientists who disagree with you, you don’t want to discuss their quotes, you only want to talk about Inhofe. As for Steve McIntyre, you don’t like the fact that he blew the stuffings out of a number of scientific claims. Again you don’t want to discuss that, you just want to accuse him of “cherry picking”. Once again you’ll seize any pretext, you’ll do anything to avoid discussing the science. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/77 "2009-11-18T00:34:20Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Speaking for myself, I’m going to remain gutlessly anonymous. I come here to express my opinion as freely as possible and would like to keep things that way. > > As it turns out, I’m on the ISI highly cited researchers list, but not in the climate sciences, so my vita is irrelevant on this particular topic anyway. > > I wish however that you would quit describing your publications as “papers.” They don’t seem to be what I would consider to be papers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and maybe things are different in the climate sciences than what I am used to. So we have another person who doesn’t want to discuss what I wrote, but just showed up to say that I’m calling them the wrong thing. Perhaps you might tell us why you can’t express yourself without wearing a mask … sounds kinky to me, but hey, you might have a good reason. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/78 "2009-11-18T00:37:01Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I don’t care where something is published. I only care if it is true. If Moses brought you the tablets of stone, you’d complain that they weren’t peer reviewed… **God** : I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. **Moses** : Cite? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/79 "2009-11-18T00:38:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh. > > I already mentioned that one should not trust anyone on a message board, this is why I consider cites the most important thing, and what I see is still that your cites do resort to call scientists hoaxers (Inhofe) and full of cherry picker accusation backpedalers (McIntyre) that at the end of the day still lie that things like the hockey stick were debunked. … Re-reading this, I realized that I agree with you, cites are the most important thing. But you are confusing the cites with the sites. Let me clear that up. The site is the location where the cite comes from. One has a “c”, and one has an “s”. What is in the cite is important, it’s the scientific content. What the site is is meaningless. Sometimes realclimate is right, sometimes it is wrong. Anyone who either believes or disbelieves something based on the site (realclimate) rather than the cite (the scientific claims made) is … well … someone like you. And I agree, don’t trust anyone on a message board … or off a message board. Check the facts, do the math, think about the claims. Don’t believe me, or you, or anyone, scientist or not. Believe the facts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/80 "2009-11-18T01:19:57Z")
> [@intention](#): > > … but just showed up to say that I’m calling them the wrong thing… Well, how’d that happen? Are you somehow unfamiliar with academic language? An inadvertent confusion of terms? No formal training in the subjects? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865.md?page=5)