Waiting for Chris to delete the post below since it is about climate change denial
-
Come on Chris, if you are going to be evenhanded about this...
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Come on Chris, if you are going to be evenhanded about this...
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s"
Wow. A quote about climate change from an electrical engineer.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s"
Wow. A quote about climate change from an electrical engineer.
You can't just pop up like that after having been absent for so long without some form of explanation!!! Or have I missed your return to the world's best source of hyperbole?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
You can't just pop up like that after having been absent for so long without some form of explanation!!! Or have I missed your return to the world's best source of hyperbole?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
You can't just pop up like that after having been absent for so long without some form of explanation!!!
Well, for a long time I didn't feel like talking to anyone.
digital man wrote:
Or have I missed your return to the world's best source of hyperbole?
Yes and no. I started posting again in Soapbox 1.0 a little while ago, and I was very quickly kicked out by Oakman for an infringement that he subsequently deleted. It was very clandestine, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it.
-
digital man wrote:
You can't just pop up like that after having been absent for so long without some form of explanation!!!
Well, for a long time I didn't feel like talking to anyone.
digital man wrote:
Or have I missed your return to the world's best source of hyperbole?
Yes and no. I started posting again in Soapbox 1.0 a little while ago, and I was very quickly kicked out by Oakman for an infringement that he subsequently deleted. It was very clandestine, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I was very quickly kicked out by Oakman for an infringement that he subsequently deleted. It was very clandestine, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it.
"Troll (Internet)[^] a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill. You are invited in and asked to abide by and be accountable to the terms of that invitation. Should you choose not to respect the establishment you are in you will be asked to leave. I hope the fact that you've wasted 3 minutes of my time in getting me to post the bleeding obvious has made your day and satisfied your need for attention." ~ Chris Maunder[^]
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
fat_boy wrote:
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s"
Wow. A quote about climate change from an electrical engineer.
Having trouble reading Ravel? "David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering." Thats only one of his degrees, in addition to a long involvement in GW: "I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic" Come on, you can do better than that. Anyway, he is a mathematician, shouldnt you have ultimate respect for him? :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I was very quickly kicked out by Oakman for an infringement that he subsequently deleted. It was very clandestine, so I'm not surprised you didn't see it.
"Troll (Internet)[^] a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill. You are invited in and asked to abide by and be accountable to the terms of that invitation. Should you choose not to respect the establishment you are in you will be asked to leave. I hope the fact that you've wasted 3 minutes of my time in getting me to post the bleeding obvious has made your day and satisfied your need for attention." ~ Chris Maunder[^]
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Ah: the old '2 sides to every story'. That doesn't sound like Ravel though, iff I recall correctly shouldn't he be a horrible teenager by now and, therefore, subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat? (I certainly was and still can be and I sure as hell ain't no teenager!)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ah: the old '2 sides to every story'. That doesn't sound like Ravel though, iff I recall correctly shouldn't he be a horrible teenager by now and, therefore, subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat? (I certainly was and still can be and I sure as hell ain't no teenager!)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat?
Absolutely. And, if he was my kid, I might have to put up with his crap. But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger. I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
digital man wrote:
subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat?
Absolutely. And, if he was my kid, I might have to put up with his crap. But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger. I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger.
I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
Ah, how you lie. You deleted a post of mine that said, "Is it just me, or is everyone acting weird around here?". You deleted posts that contained not one iota of an insult. You deleted your own vitriolic attacks on me, which by your own metric disqualifies you for membership far more than anything I ever did.
-
Ah: the old '2 sides to every story'. That doesn't sound like Ravel though, iff I recall correctly shouldn't he be a horrible teenager by now and, therefore, subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat? (I certainly was and still can be and I sure as hell ain't no teenager!)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Ah: the old '2 sides to every story'.
And do you know what Oakman's side of the story is? He likes to bring up the fact that as an administrator he has the ability to impose completely arbitrary decisions on his subjects, but he never actually describes specifically what happened. I'll describe to you what happened, from my point of view: there was a post about an article somebody wrote saying that the Japanese tsunami resembles what would happen if climate change were to occur, and Oakman responds by criticising him for blaming the tsunami ON climate change. I suggest to him that he should perhaps re-read the article so he could understand what it was actually saying, and then he completely goes off the rails at me, demanding I apologise to him for this serious infraction of Soapbox 1.0 policy. I for some reason assume that he's joking and say no, I'm not going to apologise for this. So that's what happened, essentially. Apparently my insulting Alan Burkhart consisted of me suggesting that he could be wrong about something, an action that apparently I'm qualitatively 'too young' to dare try. I'd mistakenly assumed that since he'd spent several posts telling me that I'm wrong, it was not unacceptable for me to do the same with one.
digital man wrote:
shouldn't he be a horrible teenager by now and, therefore, subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat?
Well, yes. :)
-
Having trouble reading Ravel? "David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering." Thats only one of his degrees, in addition to a long involvement in GW: "I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic" Come on, you can do better than that. Anyway, he is a mathematician, shouldnt you have ultimate respect for him? :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
"David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products.
Phh. Anybody can be a consultant - all you have to do is be hired as one.
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, he is a mathematician, shouldnt you have ultimate respect for him?
That makes him even less likely to have an understanding of reality! ;P Seriously, though, I respect proper science as much as I respect mathematics.
-
digital man wrote:
subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat?
Absolutely. And, if he was my kid, I might have to put up with his crap. But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger. I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
I asked why you were deleting posts. Is it just me, or is that not-so-obviously a cardinal sin?
-
Oakman wrote:
But - thank the good Lord - he is not and, after giving him repeated warnings that his behavior was unacceptable, warnings also given by Rob, Mike, and Alan, I finally pulled the trigger.
I had hoped that simply deleting some of his posts which were personally insulting would serve as a last warning. Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
Ah, how you lie. You deleted a post of mine that said, "Is it just me, or is everyone acting weird around here?". You deleted posts that contained not one iota of an insult. You deleted your own vitriolic attacks on me, which by your own metric disqualifies you for membership far more than anything I ever did.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ah, how you lie.
Were you, or were you not warned, many times, that your behavior was going to get your banned from the forum? Did not Rob telling you that you were behaving badly? Did not Mike tell you that you were behaving badly? Did not Alan tell you you needed to apologize to me for what you had written? These are facts, Ravel, not lies. As to my deleting some of your threads - "Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill." ~ Chris Maunder Just as Chris retains and exercises his right and responsibility to edit posts throughout CP, so do I retain and exercise my right and responsibility to edit posts in Soapbox 1.0. When you originally asked for membership, I extracted a promise from you that you would behave in an acceptable manner when posting there. You broke that promise over and over again. You were warned over and over again. You chose to ignore those warnings. Now you have discovered that your behavior has consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
Oakman wrote:
Instead they seemed to encourage him to double his invective.
I asked why you were deleting posts. Is it just me, or is that not-so-obviously a cardinal sin?
That question was part of a longer thread during which you were insulting and abusive. So much so that Alan told you to apologize to me and you refused. To single out four or five words from a series of posts in which you ranted and raved about my so-called hitlerian threats (i.e. warnings that your behavior was unacceptable) and refused to apologize for your personal insults to me is the kind of smarmy half-truth that you have used over and over again to conceal and justify your behavior.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
digital man wrote:
Ah: the old '2 sides to every story'.
And do you know what Oakman's side of the story is? He likes to bring up the fact that as an administrator he has the ability to impose completely arbitrary decisions on his subjects, but he never actually describes specifically what happened. I'll describe to you what happened, from my point of view: there was a post about an article somebody wrote saying that the Japanese tsunami resembles what would happen if climate change were to occur, and Oakman responds by criticising him for blaming the tsunami ON climate change. I suggest to him that he should perhaps re-read the article so he could understand what it was actually saying, and then he completely goes off the rails at me, demanding I apologise to him for this serious infraction of Soapbox 1.0 policy. I for some reason assume that he's joking and say no, I'm not going to apologise for this. So that's what happened, essentially. Apparently my insulting Alan Burkhart consisted of me suggesting that he could be wrong about something, an action that apparently I'm qualitatively 'too young' to dare try. I'd mistakenly assumed that since he'd spent several posts telling me that I'm wrong, it was not unacceptable for me to do the same with one.
digital man wrote:
shouldn't he be a horrible teenager by now and, therefore, subject to being a complete arse at the drop of a hat?
Well, yes. :)
Apparently you want the world to think that you were banned for one specific post or thread. You weren't. That particular thread was deleted and the deletion could have been enough had it not been that your insults and your attitude were consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again. You were on your last chance. You behaved in the same manner you had been warned about. You found out that your behavior had consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
That question was part of a longer thread during which you were insulting and abusive. So much so that Alan told you to apologize to me and you refused. To single out four or five words from a series of posts in which you ranted and raved about my so-called hitlerian threats (i.e. warnings that your behavior was unacceptable) and refused to apologize for your personal insults to me is the kind of smarmy half-truth that you have used over and over again to conceal and justify your behavior.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
That question was part of a longer thread during which you were insulting and abusive.
Apparently that's very much subject to interpretation.
Oakman wrote:
So much so that Alan told you to apologize to me and you refused.
Alan also got all precious and offended when I disagreed with him. He forfeited any influence he could have over any of my decisions at that point.
Oakman wrote:
To single out four or five words from a series of posts
Yeah, how could I not remember and quote verbatim from the entirety of a thread that I no longer have access to? And in fact no longer exists.
Oakman wrote:
raved about my so-called hitlerian threats
:laugh: Hitlerian? I may have only quoted comparatively small parts of the thread, but at least I didn't make up anything.
Oakman wrote:
and refused to apologize for your personal insults to me is the kind of smarmy half-truth that you have used over and over again to conceal and justify your behavior.
What were my personal insults to you? I disagree with you that it's reasonable to be insulted by them, or whether they were actual insults in any meaningful sense. Conceal and justify my behaviour? You're the one that redacted the thread. You're the one that refuses to talk about what happened in specific terms. I'm sorry, by the way. I'm sorry that your narcissism causes you to overreact to fanciful insults.
-
Apparently you want the world to think that you were banned for one specific post or thread. You weren't. That particular thread was deleted and the deletion could have been enough had it not been that your insults and your attitude were consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again. You were on your last chance. You behaved in the same manner you had been warned about. You found out that your behavior had consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again.
Well, why don't we discuss one specific instance that I recall of you warning me that my behaviour is unacceptable? It is, I think, a fairly typical one. We were talking about the Mexicans complaining that the US was sending violent Mexican criminals back to Mexico. I pointed out that even though their complaints are ridiculous, they're not wrong. You went off on a cascade of pedantry, and frustrated I said that your understanding of probability seems to be 'nothing is real'. This prompted a well-rehearsed warning from you, and caused Mike to say something like, "Jon, you're being a douche again to Ravel. What the kid said is perfectly reasonable. [...] What has he done to provoke such animosity from you?". You then deflected this question with a lame joke. So, that was one of the warnings you gave me. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't quite see the unanimity that you do amongst the members of SB1.0 that my behaviour was unacceptable.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ah, how you lie.
Were you, or were you not warned, many times, that your behavior was going to get your banned from the forum? Did not Rob telling you that you were behaving badly? Did not Mike tell you that you were behaving badly? Did not Alan tell you you needed to apologize to me for what you had written? These are facts, Ravel, not lies. As to my deleting some of your threads - "Please do us the courtesy of not invoking the "you're oppressing our rights to free speech" argument, especially not in this day and age. I'm not oppressing you or crushing openness and liberty because while you have the right to stand on your front doorstep and spew forth whatever you wish, you do not have the right to enter anyone's home, anyone's business, or any online forum and hold court on whatever you feel will provoke the biggest response and give you the biggest and cheapest thrill." ~ Chris Maunder Just as Chris retains and exercises his right and responsibility to edit posts throughout CP, so do I retain and exercise my right and responsibility to edit posts in Soapbox 1.0. When you originally asked for membership, I extracted a promise from you that you would behave in an acceptable manner when posting there. You broke that promise over and over again. You were warned over and over again. You chose to ignore those warnings. Now you have discovered that your behavior has consequences. Live with it.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
Did not Rob telling you that you were behaving badly?
No.
Oakman wrote:
Did not Mike tell you that you were behaving badly?
No. He called you a douche, though.
Oakman wrote:
Did not Alan tell you you needed to apologize to me for what you had written?
Yes, but that's meaningless.
Oakman wrote:
Just as Chris retains and exercises his right and responsibility to edit posts throughout CP, so do I retain and exercise my right and responsibility to edit posts in Soapbox 1.0. When you originally asked for membership, I extracted a promise from you that you would behave in an acceptable manner when posting there. You broke that promise over and over again. You were warned over and over again. You chose to ignore those warnings. Now you have discovered that your behavior has consequences. Live with it.
"I'm allowed to ban whoever I want whenever I want and they're not allowed to know why."
-
Oakman wrote:
consistent with a pattern of behavior which you had been warned about, over and over again.
Well, why don't we discuss one specific instance that I recall of you warning me that my behaviour is unacceptable? It is, I think, a fairly typical one. We were talking about the Mexicans complaining that the US was sending violent Mexican criminals back to Mexico. I pointed out that even though their complaints are ridiculous, they're not wrong. You went off on a cascade of pedantry, and frustrated I said that your understanding of probability seems to be 'nothing is real'. This prompted a well-rehearsed warning from you, and caused Mike to say something like, "Jon, you're being a douche again to Ravel. What the kid said is perfectly reasonable. [...] What has he done to provoke such animosity from you?". You then deflected this question with a lame joke. So, that was one of the warnings you gave me. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't quite see the unanimity that you do amongst the members of SB1.0 that my behaviour was unacceptable.
-
I would point out that you are the one ranting.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Trollslayer wrote:
I would point out that you are the one ranting.
You would...if I were actually ranting? :) I'm obsessing, I concede that much, but I'm not ranting.