Worse, you’ll have to bang all of them! They call it the Death of A Thousand Cunts.
The world is magical. 
And they will always have something to do with Qi, by definition.
No, your Qi is too messed up for her pristine beauty to lay eyes on you.
I regret that I have but one life to give in service to fighting ignorance. 
Go ahead and define it so broadly it has no meaning.
Have you considered the state of dental hygiene 4500 years ago? Her head is gonna be buried in a pile of pillows if anything.
Dang, my own pit thread! Cool. I am deeply honored. My thanks to all. Bye!
Oh, no thanks required. You deserve it you stupid conspiracy theory-lovin’ simpleton.
Good to keep this pit on track, but now that he is gone, all should check how he demonstrated his stupidity by not knowing what an skeptic is, and by not knowing the definitions of debunked, and backpedaling:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537088&page=3
The crazy and stupid stuff comes up mostly after post #141 (notice his maturity level based how he names his opponents in the quotes)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11707793&postcount=141
Misrepresentations galore and lies and paranoia defended, no cite posted by the pitted one is a bad one.
A point of fact. While I may be a simpleton, I have asked you repeatedly for a single cite where I advanced a conspiracy theory. So far, nothing. However, I do confess to voting for Obama, and also to liking some things he has done and not liking others.
You think AGW is a fraud, presumably perpetrated for some reason or other.
Also you think your fucking letter to the editor makes you count as having a peer reviewed article on climate science. That might make you a crazy person.
Let me guess, was his letter to the editor was in a reputable journal so now he can say he published in a reputable journal? Did anyone see his so-called research article in climate science? He posted his .pdf file in the thread GIGObuster linked. You can look up the journal. It’s a sketchy political/social science journal with a global warming denier as chief editor. I already forgot his name but I googled it once I got it from his ‘article’. This dude is all freakin’ over the internets spouting nonsense. It’s like a full-time job for him. Hmmmm, maybe it is.
Anyway, his dishonesty in only posting part of a Science article drew me out of lurking. Then he proceeded with his dishonesty throughout that thread. To my chagrin, this dishonesty works because people came in making comments about “scientists on both sides of the issue”. There are no climate scientists on both sides of the issue! The majority think there’s AGW! WTF??? But people who really don’t care or tend to be conservative, don’t bother to read posts, especially intention’s long-winded crap. It’s just a lot of words that make it look like there’s a controversy for the light reader.
I had to put intention on ignore because I have no self-control and I felt like he was pulling me into a vortex of crazy. I had to stop the insanity!
I have long suspected this. There’s a particular debating style that begins by thanking/praising the contributor, then disagreeing with them, that I saw in an online PR article - think the original was published by the US Navy - on how to engage detractors online.
I have always found intention’s posting style to be so very formulaic and close to this, and his position to be so immutable, that were he revealed actually to be a shill, rather than just behaving like one, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.
He’s a deather too.
I made the point to say that **intention **is not personally advancing a conspiracy in the other thread, but he will nevertheless continue to embrace and defend Inhofe and other conspiracy sources, even when others point to the chunks of paranoia and conspiracy that they spouted.
I have no doubt there are several shills of that ilk on these boards. Either paid or self-appointed.
Yup, I noticed that too. He starts out polite. Then he kindly guides you through grade school science concepts because he assumes you’re a rube. Finally, when he knows for sure you’re on to him, he vacillates between attacking you and accusing you of attacking him.
In fact, when I googled his name, I found out he was a construction manager for a swanky resort in Tuvalu. Moreover, one of his articles is about how AGW is not responsible for rise in sea levels in Tuvalu. Something like that. Anyway, you can see where I’m going here. Real estate is not gonna be too hot on a sinking island and a construction manager for a resort community definitely has a conflict of interest. Just sayin’.
One would assume that the price of land in Tuvalu will go up if there’s less of it, no?
:rolleyes: Qi whiz!
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.
Fucking funny.
His pretensions of being a published authority on the issue are pure horseshit. Following up on his claim to being published by a peer-reviewed journal, you can readily see that he is a hopped up wannabe. Googling the name revealed (by him!) shows no such publications, but merely a string of posts to various web sites, some related to actual science journals, some not so much.
His arguments stand or fall on their own. Well, actually, they burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp. But his claims to acknowledged expertise are total horseshit.
Qi’s whiz! 