Climate chief, recent warming not statisticaly significant.
-
Ohhh, so tetchy! I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised, in which case your insult is, in your own judgement, 'illegal', or that you are a true believer in the socialist scam that is AGW and are unprepared to countenance any criticism of it. In which case you are a self deluded fool. So in both cases you do yourself a diservice by responding in such a way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So in both cases
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you, so your posts will be removed anyway (either by the public, or by the administrators). Take it to the SB or the backroom. You don't have an option of discussing it here.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
Ohhh, so tetchy! I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised, in which case your insult is, in your own judgement, 'illegal', or that you are a true believer in the socialist scam that is AGW and are unprepared to countenance any criticism of it. In which case you are a self deluded fool. So in both cases you do yourself a diservice by responding in such a way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'd like to propose an addendum to the old "If you go looking for trouble..." saw. Adding "... And you won't make any friends, either" seems appropriate, to me.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Ohhh, so tetchy! I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised, in which case your insult is, in your own judgement, 'illegal', or that you are a true believer in the socialist scam that is AGW and are unprepared to countenance any criticism of it. In which case you are a self deluded fool. So in both cases you do yourself a diservice by responding in such a way.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
So in both cases
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you, so your posts will be removed anyway (either by the public, or by the administrators). Take it to the SB or the backroom. You don't have an option of discussing it here.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you,
In which case my posts can be ignored. Deletion however shows anger, and is therefore covered under case #2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised...
Third option - you're a shithead, and she calls it the way she sees it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you,
In which case my posts can be ignored. Deletion however shows anger, and is therefore covered under case #2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I am usually not a fan of the "vote to remove message" feature. But on certain occasions, it comes handy as a useful utility to get rid of unwanted garbage like GW posts. I wonder what makes you think it is good to create more and more threads on the same boring topic, when nobody shows any interest at all. :) You also are failing to see the fact that every single person need not take a side on the GW discussion. PS: There may be people like me who won't care to give a damn to discuss GW here. That doesn't mean I am covered under "case #2".
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
s***head
Yep, thats hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and aggression. Thats case #1 and #2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I agree it's hypocrisy that he's being abusive while not asking you to be abusive. However, it isn't that he has to either believe in GW or not believe in it, which you completely fail to see. He has an option of not giving a damn to think or talk about it, as it may not be of his interest.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
fat_boy wrote:
So in both cases
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you, so your posts will be removed anyway (either by the public, or by the administrators). Take it to the SB or the backroom. You don't have an option of discussing it here.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you
You see how making an assumption makes an ass out of you and your pet umption? I care to discuss it (along with pretty much anything else). I don't wish to enter the murky and somewhat seedy world of the back room or soabbox so that leaves the Lounge. (Oakmans soapbox has a limited membership so is also not the right place for heavy discussions).
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
I am usually not a fan of the "vote to remove message" feature. But on certain occasions, it comes handy as a useful utility to get rid of unwanted garbage like GW posts. I wonder what makes you think it is good to create more and more threads on the same boring topic, when nobody shows any interest at all. :) You also are failing to see the fact that every single person need not take a side on the GW discussion. PS: There may be people like me who won't care to give a damn to discuss GW here. That doesn't mean I am covered under "case #2".
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
And how much universal interest is there in any thread? It depends. If you are interested you read and respond. If not you move on. Yet GW posts get the hackkles up of a few people on CP who thus turn the topic into one similar to religion or politics, and thus not lounge safe. However, since the world is spending millions of our tax dolars, punds, euros, rupees etc on GW research, I think it is actually very inrteresting given current developement such as the one I linked to. If others feel so emotional about GW that they cant just move on, but have to delete it as a topic of dicsuccionthen I can only assume they are such staunch believers that they cannot bear to see what has to them become a religion criticised. This is clearly silly since it is a matter of sciene and not faith and as intelligent people software engineers, such as make up the majority of CPians, ought to be able to discuss GW rationally without resorting to emotion and censorship.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
I would guess that you either like the lounge to be sanitised...
Third option - you're a shithead, and she calls it the way she sees it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Third option - you're a s***head, and she calls it the way she sees it.
Time of the month? Or are you always such a rude dick?
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Third option - you're a s***head, and she calls it the way she sees it.
Time of the month? Or are you always such a rude dick?
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
s***head
Yep, thats hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and aggression. Thats case #1 and #2.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I agree it's hypocrisy that he's being abusive while not asking you to be abusive. However, it isn't that he has to either believe in GW or not believe in it, which you completely fail to see. He has an option of not giving a damn to think or talk about it, as it may not be of his interest.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
He has an option of not giving a damn to think or talk about it, as it may not be of his interest.
Then like any other thread why doesnt he just move on? The fact he responds so aggressively shows he feels emotionally about GW, but is unable to discuss it maturely. Should my posts, which many do find interesting, be censored because of a minority of aggressive inarticulate people?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
If that idiot hasn't figured out yet that noone wants to see this shit in the lounge, he needs to have his head kicked in.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
If that idiot hasn't figured out yet that noone wants to see this sh*t in the lounge, he needs to have his head kicked in.
What is your problem? I'd like to read it and I don't appreciate being censored or told that I don't want to read it. Besides, you're a real big brave boy in the Lounge. I wonder if you'd have the nads to say it to his face? Or anyone's face, for that matter.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
The third case is that nobody cares to 'discuss' about GW with you
You see how making an assumption makes an ass out of you and your pet umption? I care to discuss it (along with pretty much anything else). I don't wish to enter the murky and somewhat seedy world of the back room or soabbox so that leaves the Lounge. (Oakmans soapbox has a limited membership so is also not the right place for heavy discussions).
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
It doesn't matter what you think I've made out of myself. I took only the majority into account, and the fact that his post was removed proves it. His GW pots (entire threads) were removed by Chris from the lounge on a few occasions too, so Chris might have made an ass out of himself for not taking your very important opinion into consideration? He looks desperate for someone to talk about GW with, and you seem to have similar interests too! So, go ahead and discuss it with him. Who's stopping you? The crowd, removing the posts? Even if I try to counter-vote, I can't help it! Perhaps you should complain about this to Chris.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
Once again you are being abusive, and thus a hypocrit, and self contradictory because you responded to what I posted thus you DO care what I wrote. If you really dont care about GW then just move on to a thread which does interest you. If not then please feel freet o debate it in a mature non abusive fashion.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And how much universal interest is there in any thread? It depends. If you are interested you read and respond. If not you move on. Yet GW posts get the hackkles up of a few people on CP who thus turn the topic into one similar to religion or politics, and thus not lounge safe. However, since the world is spending millions of our tax dolars, punds, euros, rupees etc on GW research, I think it is actually very inrteresting given current developement such as the one I linked to. If others feel so emotional about GW that they cant just move on, but have to delete it as a topic of dicsuccionthen I can only assume they are such staunch believers that they cannot bear to see what has to them become a religion criticised. This is clearly silly since it is a matter of sciene and not faith and as intelligent people software engineers, such as make up the majority of CPians, ought to be able to discuss GW rationally without resorting to emotion and censorship.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Firstly, I'm not 1-voting you repeatedly. Not that I think you worry about it, but still!
fat_boy wrote:
This is clearly silly since it is a matter of sciene and not faith and as intelligent people software engineers, such as make up the majority of CPians, ought to be able to discuss GW rationally without resorting to emotion and censorship.
The point, I think, is that you keep repeating the same thing, and the topic has been beaten to death already! I'd personally 'move on' as you said though. :)
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
If that idiot hasn't figured out yet that noone wants to see this sh*t in the lounge, he needs to have his head kicked in.
What is your problem? I'd like to read it and I don't appreciate being censored or told that I don't want to read it. Besides, you're a real big brave boy in the Lounge. I wonder if you'd have the nads to say it to his face? Or anyone's face, for that matter.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Once again you are being abusive, and thus a hypocrit, and self contradictory because you responded to what I posted thus you DO care what I wrote. If you really dont care about GW then just move on to a thread which does interest you. If not then please feel freet o debate it in a mature non abusive fashion.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
He has an option of not giving a damn to think or talk about it, as it may not be of his interest.
Then like any other thread why doesnt he just move on? The fact he responds so aggressively shows he feels emotionally about GW, but is unable to discuss it maturely. Should my posts, which many do find interesting, be censored because of a minority of aggressive inarticulate people?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The fact he responds so aggressively shows he feels emotionally about GW, but is unable to discuss it maturely.
No, you fail to see the point. Some people may not care to discuss about GW, but they still remove your posts, because you repeat this occasionally, which could have totally pissed off a good number of people. And their stereotypical response is to remove off anything related to GW posted by you and piss you off back, because they have the power to do it now.
fat_boy wrote:
Should my posts, which many do find interesting, be censored because of a minority of aggressive inarticulate people?
That, you need to take up with Chris. Send him an email, or better yet create a thread in the suggestions forum complaining about this so everyone else can share their opinion too.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
