Climate chief, recent warming not statisticaly significant.
-
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
-
Well, it took more than just my vote to delete it. The bottom line is the majority don't want this crap in the lounge. From Fat_Boy, CSS, you, or anyone else.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
I won't put him in the same category as CSS. He's technically good (I've seen him post on the C++ forum) and he's capable of giving a intellectual argument (I've read his posts and have discussed with him on the SB in the old days). But there's no reason for him to to repeatedly create threads on GW in the lounge, when his posts are repeatedly removed either by the people or by the moderators. I just don't understand *that* bit.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
Well, it took more than just my vote to delete it. The bottom line is the majority don't want this crap in the lounge. From Fat_Boy, CSS, you, or anyone else.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
The bottom line is the majority don't want this crap in the lounge
Really? Is that your considered opionion backed up by facts and figures or simply the number of people that can get a post removed? Frankly you and the other people that block this are being very childish: what right have you to tell me what I can and can't read or might or might not be interested in should someone else take the trouble to post it? If you have a personal issue with that person then take it up with that person. Further, are you being so aggressive and bloody minded because you disagree with what he says but are are unable to refute his arguments so resort to striking out? Either way it is most annoying.
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:
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
There's a thingy in the posting guidelines, which are right on top of the page : Posting Guidelines: The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads. GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
The bottom line is the majority don't want this crap in the lounge
Really? Is that your considered opionion backed up by facts and figures or simply the number of people that can get a post removed? Frankly you and the other people that block this are being very childish: what right have you to tell me what I can and can't read or might or might not be interested in should someone else take the trouble to post it? If you have a personal issue with that person then take it up with that person. Further, are you being so aggressive and bloody minded because you disagree with what he says but are are unable to refute his arguments so resort to striking out? Either way it is most annoying.
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:
The bottom line is the majority don't want this crap in the lounge
Really? Is that your considered opionion backed up by facts and figures or simply the number of people that can get a post removed? Frankly you and the other people that block this are being very childish: what right have you to tell me what I can and can't read or might or might not be interested in should someone else take the trouble to post it? If you have a personal issue with that person then take it up with that person. Further, are you being so aggressive and bloody minded because you disagree with what he says but are are unable to refute his arguments so resort to striking out? Either way it is most annoying.
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
-
There's a thingy in the posting guidelines, which are right on top of the page : Posting Guidelines: The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads. GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
And spewing outright hatred mixed with really bad language is somehow ok. I guess you just have to be in the right click it's all ok. I'm kind curious to read his original post, I'm with digitalman on this one.
-
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
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
It doesn't matter what you think I've made out of myself.
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I took only the majority into account, and the fact that his post was removed proves it
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
your very important opinion into consideration?
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, go ahead and discuss it with him
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
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
Wow, this is getting hectic. I think you'd have been better received if you didn't have such a reputation for relentlessly swamping message boards with such posts.
-
Grow up.
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 won't put him in the same category as CSS. He's technically good (I've seen him post on the C++ forum) and he's capable of giving a intellectual argument (I've read his posts and have discussed with him on the SB in the old days). But there's no reason for him to to repeatedly create threads on GW in the lounge, when his posts are repeatedly removed either by the people or by the moderators. I just don't understand *that* bit.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I won't put him in the same category as CSS. He's technically good (I've seen him post on the C++ forum) and he's capable of giving a intellectual argument (I've read his posts and have discussed with him on the SB in the old days).
It wasn't really meant to be a comparison. Besides, I usually don't denigrate people's technical ability. I inevitably get caught out in my own moments of stupidity if I try. :)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
See? Flames coming out of everyone's erm... arses...
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
-
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
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
the topic has been beaten to death already!
I guess you havent seen the stuff in the UK news recently about the corruption and fraud uncovered at the heart of the IPCC and CRU?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
It doesn't matter what you think I've made out of myself.
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
I took only the majority into account, and the fact that his post was removed proves it
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
your very important opinion into consideration?
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, go ahead and discuss it with him
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
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
digital man wrote:
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Bad guess.
digital man wrote:
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
digital man wrote:
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Struck a nerve? Respect is a mutual thing, you see. If you're being disrespectful, I'll give it back to you.
digital man wrote:
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
What do you mean I don't like it?! By arguing it against his favour, do not think that I'm wanting to remove his posts! I only am making a point that it is either that the majority doesn't like it, or that the threshold to remove a post is lower than what's acceptable (in your opinion?). If it were the latter case, it must be taken up with Chris. But I do remember similar things happened in the past and the threshold to remove abusive/spam/unwanted posts were increased multiple times (from 3 to 12 if I remember it correct). However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good when I look the number of votes applied to remove it. If it's increased further, I still wonder if it's going to help. Because all it would take would be some more votes to remove it, which I think will most probably be cast by more people. Or that you could advocate against the 'vote for removal' system at all, which only Chris can take a call on. Oh, and that's not my vote on your post. :rolleyes:
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
the topic has been beaten to death already!
I guess you havent seen the stuff in the UK news recently about the corruption and fraud uncovered at the heart of the IPCC and CRU?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I did read about it (one of your earlier threads, linking to the content). But thanks, I don't want to talk about it now and here. My point is - if you feel that your posts are being removed in an unjustified manner, take it up with Chris.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
-
There's a thingy in the posting guidelines, which are right on top of the page : Posting Guidelines: The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct and please don't post ads. GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
Nah... What's up, Doc? CCC's solved : 1 If a bus station is where a bus stops, and a train station is where a train stops, why do I have a work station on my desk?
S. Brozius wrote:
GW is a topic that invites flame wars (no pun intended here), and thus is no topic for the lounge.
It can do if people get all evangelical but sometimes we'd just like to see some other information without getting into a shitstorm. The real point here is that I'm not being given a chance to see what has been posted because a few people (hardly a majority) have deemed it unfit for public consumption. I may hate what he has said and wish to downvote it myself but becuase of the actions of a few childish people who have decided that they control the Lounge I don't get a chance. Further, when they are pulled up on it they get all hissy and childish. What on earth is that all about?
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
-
Wow, this is getting hectic. I think you'd have been better received if you didn't have such a reputation for relentlessly swamping message boards with such posts.
Well, swamping is relative to the general posting frequency. WHat might seem swampiong is just a total lack of other posts for days while some particular piece if AGW hysteria falls apart. In the lounge, with its higher post rate, it wold be impossible to swamp.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
digital man wrote:
That was supposed to be funny. I guess it just struck a nerve.
Bad guess.
digital man wrote:
It only proves that there are enough people at any one time who downvote the post - that in no way signifies a majority.
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
digital man wrote:
Oh please, how childish: I'm sure you can do better than that.
Struck a nerve? Respect is a mutual thing, you see. If you're being disrespectful, I'll give it back to you.
digital man wrote:
I would if I ever got the chance to see what he has posted. It's not like it isn't kid sister safe or is rude or offensive. If you don't like it, pass it by. Hey, I may even vote it down but I'm not getting the chance to do so.
What do you mean I don't like it?! By arguing it against his favour, do not think that I'm wanting to remove his posts! I only am making a point that it is either that the majority doesn't like it, or that the threshold to remove a post is lower than what's acceptable (in your opinion?). If it were the latter case, it must be taken up with Chris. But I do remember similar things happened in the past and the threshold to remove abusive/spam/unwanted posts were increased multiple times (from 3 to 12 if I remember it correct). However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good when I look the number of votes applied to remove it. If it's increased further, I still wonder if it's going to help. Because all it would take would be some more votes to remove it, which I think will most probably be cast by more people. Or that you could advocate against the 'vote for removal' system at all, which only Chris can take a call on. Oh, and that's not my vote on your post. :rolleyes:
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Bad guess.
Doesn't sound that way or you would have ignored it.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
So, that's a problem with the system itself, which only Chris could fix.
I would agree with that but I suspect it won't happen.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
What do you mean I don't like it
In a general sense, not you specifically.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
However, I do think that for most other (abusive) posts, the threshold is pretty good
Again, I would agree but I can't see how a post on GW could be considered abusive. It strikes me that to donwvote these posts is a knee jerk reaction against fat_boy rather than the content. I feel that he should be allowed to post what are usually just pointers to news articles or other information which might be useful. It's not like he is posting links to porn.
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