Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]

Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:

"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA [42] and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46]. ... according to national statistics for the USA, while area burned by prescribed fire has changed little overall since reporting began in 1998 (10 year average: 8853 km2), area burned by wildfires has seen an overall strong trend of increase by over 5%/yr over the period 1991–2015, with 2015 exceeding 40 000 km2 burned for the first time during the past 25 years (figure 3). This increase has been accompanied by an overall decline in the number of fires (figure 3). This suggests a general trend of fewer, but larger wildfires, which is also highlighted for forests in the western USA by Westerling for the period 1983–2012 [46]. ..."

So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time [47]."

Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and

Perhaps you would like to rebut the Royal Society paper, that shows a DECREASE in wildfires last decades/centuries [Les Johnson, 2016-06-13]

Wow. One of Lonny Eachus's fellow travellers completely ignores everything I wrote. What a complete surprise!

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that Royal Society paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

So that paper explicitly includes "slash-and-burn cultivation" in the decreasing total area burned. Which is exactly what I told you earlier. That paper is examining all fires, both wildfires and intentional burns. Notice that they're examining charcoal records and isotope-ratio records in ice cores? Those records necessarily include intentional burns, like the "staggering amounts" of land clearing fires that occurred just in the USA over the last century. Ice core and charcoal records can't distinguish wildfires from intentional burns, but when Doerr and Santin use statistics that can tell the difference, the results aren't quite what Les Johnson is implying:

"... the widely reported increase in area burned for the USA [42] and particularly the western USA in recent decades [43–46]. ... according to national statistics for the USA, while area burned by prescribed fire has changed little overall since reporting began in 1998 (10 year average: 8853 km2), area burned by wildfires has seen an overall strong trend of increase by over 5%/yr over the period 1991–2015, with 2015 exceeding 40 000 km2 burned for the first time during the past 25 years (figure 3). This increase has been accompanied by an overall decline in the number of fires (figure 3). This suggests a general trend of fewer, but larger wildfires, which is also highlighted for forests in the western USA by Westerling for the period 1983–2012 [46]. ..."

So Doerr and Santin are actually saying that wildfires are burning more area in the western USA in recent decades. That's exactly what I said in 2012. And note that Doerr and Santin say "These statistics need to be viewed with some caution when examining trends as annual reporting methods and biases have undergone changes over time [47]."

Doerr and Santin reference 47 is Short 2015, which says:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

New paper, that says fires decreasing last decades, much less 100s years rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/16... Love the title: "...perceptions versus realities in a changing world" [Les Johnson, 2016-06-11]

Again, as I pointed out, land clearing fires decreased (among other factors involving direct human intervention). From that new paper:

"... During the first half century, the global average area burned decreased somewhat by about 7% [41]. This was largely attributed to human factors, such as increased fire prevention, detection and fire-fighting efficiency, abandonment of slash-and-burn cultivation in some areas and permanent agricultural practice in others. ..."

That's why I objected when Tom Nelson and Lonny Eachus and "Steven Goddard" accused scientists of fraud and dishonesty based on a graph that compares apples and oranges by grafting old data which includes intentional burns onto newer data that excludes intentional burns. Short 2015 explains why their accusations are wrong:

"... Intentional ('controlled') burning was used extensively for vegetation management on nonfederal lands, especially in the south-eastern US during the early 20th century. Although now used to a lesser extent (but on both federal and non-federal lands) in the US, intentional burning is not classified in the current reporting systems as 'wildfire' unless the controlled burn escapes and requires a suppression response. However, the early USFS wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the USFS as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated (Pyne 1982). Controlled burning was accepted as a viable landmanagement practice over time and persists to this day (Melvin 2012); however, statistics regarding its use have not been included in summaries of 'wildfire' activity for several decades. ..."

That's exactly what I told you earlier, and it answers your repeated question about intentional burns in the USA. So when you claimed a "massive decline" in fires, what you really meant is that the older USFS data included intentional burns, but more recent statistics don't include intentional burns.

There's really no need to imply that mainstream scientists don't understand that direct human intervention is currently a bigger factor than climate change. That is, in fact, exactly what Pechony and Shindell 2010 Fig. 2A shows. The gray line (fires without direct human intervention) projects an "impending shift to a temperature-driven global fire regime in the 21st century, creating an unprecedentedly fire-prone environment. These results suggest a possibility that in the future climate will play a considerably stronger role in driving global fire trends, outweighing direct human influence on fire (both ignition and suppression), a reversal from the situation during the last two centuries."

In fact, three years ago I quoted the same paper

Just after Google is apparently skewing search results for Clinton, they suddenly come out in support of a position that she's strongly in favor for. Just coincidence right? The number of coincidences going on with tech companies these days is just pretty amazing. There of course is another story on this with google saying it's true gov' we're not skewing anything. It's almost like when twitter started suspending non-feminists for objecting to the use of #killallmen, but feminists still use it to this day without any problems.

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal.

Funny, I've been saying that Trump would succeed, that the vacuous drones for the GOP nomination would not have the charisma to do anything about him, and that's what I heard, that he was saying and doing all the things that would be popular with the GOP.

Even if they were nothing more than blowhard rants.

That sort of stuff does work, and if anybody didn't realize that, I'd consider them fools. Yeah, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, they had to claim otherwise, because who wants to admit defeat, but I figured as soon as Trump jumped in, he'd be on top.

But then, I felt the same way about Perot. He was saying all the right things to get a chunk of voters behind him.

Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

Oh no, some few people are engaging in violence. What a new political development, completely unknown in history. And this country, it surely would not be formed after the result of going to the extreme.

Oh wait, no, both are truly part of our history. You can regret it, and find it misguided or even outright wrong, but I wouldn't be able deny it was considered necessary at times.

Meanwhile, Trump does nothing on his end that even suggests violence is a good idea. He's truly a man of peace.

You know, except for his general bombastic belligerence. He's chosen to be provocative himself.

And neither he, nor liberals are the only ones. You can find plenty of individuals across the political spectrum who have called for riots, revolution, and secession.

What, are you going to disavow it? Noble of you, if so. But I think your intent is to pretend it only sullies one side.

In any case, you didn't read that HuffPost editorial, did you? You relied on its title, a provocative one to be sure, but its substance, yeah, you should really examine it in full. I bet you can't even process the conclusion:

Last, I want to briefly note the problematic nature of people with privilege condemning violent resistance to Trump as an absolute moral failing, or denying its logic. Whether you would personally engage in violent conduct matters little to your ability to understand where it comes from. Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don’t be that liberal.

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal.

Funny, I've been saying that Trump would succeed, that the vacuous drones for the GOP nomination would not have the charisma to do anything about him, and that's what I heard, that he was saying and doing all the things that would be popular with the GOP.

Even if they were nothing more than blowhard rants.

That sort of stuff does work, and if anybody didn't realize that, I'd consider them fools. Yeah, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, they had to claim otherwise, because who wants to admit defeat, but I figured as soon as Trump jumped in, he'd be on top.

But then, I felt the same way about Perot. He was saying all the right things to get a chunk of voters behind him.

Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

Oh no, some few people are engaging in violence. What a new political development, completely unknown in history. And this country, it surely would not be formed after the result of going to the extreme.

Oh wait, no, both are truly part of our history. You can regret it, and find it misguided or even outright wrong, but I wouldn't be able deny it was considered necessary at times.

Meanwhile, Trump does nothing on his end that even suggests violence is a good idea. He's truly a man of peace.

You know, except for his general bombastic belligerence. He's chosen to be provocative himself.

And neither he, nor liberals are the only ones. You can find plenty of individuals across the political spectrum who have called for riots, revolution, and secession.

What, are you going to disavow it? Noble of you, if so. But I think your intent is to pretend it only sullies one side.

In any case, you didn't read that HuffPost editorial, did you? You relied on its title, a provocative one to be sure, but its substance, yeah, you should really examine it in full. I bet you can't even process the conclusion:

Last, I want to briefly note the problematic nature of people with privilege condemning violent resistance to Trump as an absolute moral failing, or denying its logic. Whether you would personally engage in violent conduct matters little to your ability to understand where it comes from. Some people have the privilege to consider the implications of Trump’s rise in the abstract and negotiate which means are necessary. That’s not true for everyone. And when those who hold that privilege dismiss the potential validity or logic of violent resistance, it’s effectively an effort to dictate the rules under which oppressed peoples respond to existential threats, and to silence forms of resistance disagreeable to privileged sensibilities. Don’t be that liberal.

His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal. Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

His lead in the opinion polls against Trump is in the double-digits range whereas Clinton vs Trump figures are within the margin of error.

Funny that I keep hearing that, and yet every time the media and pollsters open their mouths the opposite happens. Jumping back to the recent past, you even had the flappy headed media and pollsters saying that Trump wouldn't succeed to make it to October of last year. Ol'Nick at 538 got so up set he threw a hissyfit and started acting like a child. Media? Same deal. Hillary and Sanders supporters? Well some of them opted for open violence along with illegals. Some news organizations? Vox and Huffpo are all for rioting and using violence against Trump.

Keep going guys, you're proving Trump right.

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

I am very careful to not "falsely" accuse. You have not demonstrated similar caution. This tweet, for example. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

You've been falsely accusing scientists of dishonesty and fraud for years, Lonny! You just can't admit you're wrong, so you'll never be able to recognize that all your hysterical accusations are baseless.

For instance, you've been falsely accusing Cook et al. of fraud. I've explained that your accusations are false, and pointed out that NASA disagrees with your false accusations. You've even admitted it's "bothersome" that NASA supports the Cook paper, but you don't seem capable of understanding that NASA supports it because your accusations are simply false.

Also, Lonny falsely accuses scientists of being "liars" if they acknowledge the global sea level rise of ~3 mm/year. Which means that Lonny is falsely accusing NASA, the University of Colorado, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK Royal Society of being "liars".

And that doesn't even include all the times Lonny Eachus falsely accused me of lying.

@voxday be warned: this guy [DumbSci] is SJW personified. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-05-20]

You should read @voxday's "SJWs Always Lie". If you're honest with yourself, you will see yourself in its pages. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Oh, the irony! Lonny admitted he lied a lot when he was younger, and just a few months ago Lonny admitted he lies about climate science. Seems like Lonny Eachus didn't "get over" lying a lot.

Lonny Eachus might have merely been honestly mistaken when he first falsely accused NOAA and NASA scientists of adjusting global temperature data "always cooler in the past and warmer now". But then I showed Lonny that his accusation was false; in reality NOAA and NASA have adjusted global temperature data to reduce global warming over the last century. However, even after that Lonny Eachus keeps making the same false accusation over and over and over and over and over. According to Lonny's own rule, that means Lonny Eachus stopped being honest.

Lonny

So Lonny can "rebut anybody" by telling a mother there's a special place in Hell for her, but I can't object? Sure. [DumbSci]

By the way, from Hayhoe's Bible: "But as for the cowardly murderers ... and all liars, their portion will be... in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." That's what Christians mean by "a special place". Most of them get the reference. You didn't, apparently. FYI it's a common phrase among Christians. [Lonny highlights the word "hypocrites"] [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Once again Lonny, you have a remarkable ability to rationalize your own behavior. Lonny seems to be denying that he's attacking scientists, while simultaneously doubling down on his baseless "liar" and "hypocrite" attacks.

Does Lonny seriously think he wasn't attacking a mother by telling her there's a special place in Hell for people like her? Wow. Lonny should try to remember that one Christian mother already said she was "pretty sure" Lonny was attacking her. If Lonny is actually just honestly confused about how this works (rather than simply acting like a pathologically dishonest psychopath who sadistically enjoys attacking mothers) then maybe Lonny should stand outside a Christian church and tell every mother leaving with young children that there's a special place in Hell for people like her. Then Lonny could ask if that's an attack or just a common phrase.

So Lonny can "rebut anybody" by telling a mother there's a special place in Hell for her, but I can't object? Sure. [DumbSci]

By the way, from Hayhoe's Bible: "But as for the cowardly murderers ... and all liars, their portion will be... in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." That's what Christians mean by "a special place". Most of them get the reference. You didn't, apparently. FYI it's a common phrase among Christians. [Lonny highlights the word "hypocrites"] [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Once again Lonny, you have a remarkable ability to rationalize your own behavior. Lonny seems to be denying that he's attacking scientists, while simultaneously doubling down on his baseless "liar" and "hypocrite" attacks.

Does Lonny seriously think he wasn't attacking a mother by telling her there's a special place in Hell for people like her? Wow. Lonny should try to remember that one Christian mother already said she was "pretty sure" Lonny was attacking her. If Lonny is actually just honestly confused about how this works (rather than simply acting like a pathologically dishonest psychopath who sadistically enjoys attacking mothers) then maybe Lonny should stand outside a Christian church and tell every mother leaving with young children that there's a special place in Hell for people like her. Then Lonny could ask if that's an attack or just a common phrase.

So Lonny can "rebut anybody" by telling a mother there's a special place in Hell for her, but I can't object? Sure. [DumbSci]

By the way, from Hayhoe's Bible: "But as for the cowardly murderers ... and all liars, their portion will be... in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." That's what Christians mean by "a special place". Most of them get the reference. You didn't, apparently. FYI it's a common phrase among Christians. [Lonny highlights the word "hypocrites"] [Lonny Eachus, 2016-06-05]

Once again Lonny, you have a remarkable ability to rationalize your own behavior. Lonny seems to be denying that he's attacking scientists, while simultaneously doubling down on his baseless "liar" and "hypocrite" attacks.

Does Lonny seriously think he wasn't attacking a mother by telling her there's a special place in Hell for people like her? Wow. Lonny should try to remember that one Christian mother already said she was "pretty sure" Lonny was attacking her. If Lonny is actually just honestly confused about how this works (rather than simply acting like a pathologically dishonest psychopath who sadistically enjoys attacking mothers) then maybe Lonny should stand outside a Christian church and tell every mother leaving with young children that there's a special place in Hell for people like her. Then Lonny could ask if that's an attack or just a common phrase.

Utter Nonsense. That post was thoroughly debunked. That fellow did a clean install of windows 10 enterprise and then monitored it. He didn't disable telemetry. He didn't disable windows updates. He didn't disable onedrive. He didn't disable live tiles. He didn't disable a single solitary thing.

This is where your link leads back:
your link:
https://forum.teksyndicate.com...

Which links back to slashdot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

Which links back to this forum:
https://voat.co/v/technology/c...

and the link back to the actual original archived post since the original user deleted it:
https://archive.is/QFL8e#selec...

"Like many of you, I am concerned about the telemetry, spying and other surveillance features, known or unknown, of Windows 10. It has concerned me enough to push me to Linux Mint as my main operating system. Even so, I wanted to better understand Windows 10, but internet search results for a decent windows 10 traffic analysis leave a lot to be desired. As such, I decided to do my own investigating on what, exactly, Windows 10 is doing traffic-wise, and post the results. For this analysis, I wanted to simply analyse the network traffic of Windows 10 on a clean install, and just let it sit and run without using it."

Although the links say he disabled telemetry, he didn't disable anything at all. (And most of the traffic on a clean install was probably windows update.)

Pure FUD.

Why are you stalking and libeling scientists? As soon as Jane/Lonny stops, I won't have to debunk his baseless accusations any more.

Yup, Microsoft are still cunts.

To be fair, at least NewScientist was better, subject-matter wise, than the more recent love affair with Forbes.com

One of the things we learned during the last few months of Gamergate is that Forbes is now a glorified blogging network that pays per click. So you have a serious economic incentive to get your article out there for clicks... and tailoring a pitch for it for Slashdot is a great way to do so.

Also, that means that Forbes.com is about as newsworthy as Wordpress.com.

Clickbait: The More You Know (TM)

So, basically it's the Chinese version of the Jewish Internet Defense Force or Hillary Clinton's Correct the Record shills.

Or, how about these shadowy forces controlling online conversations in the US?

Not to mention the Pentagon, Shell Oil, and all the other shills. I don't mean to pick on the USA, everyone employs shills. Hell Germany goes above and beyond and has Merkel trying to silence anti-immigration political views on Facebook.

protip: If you use social media you are either being deceived or are a deceiver.

Last year some jackass named John Greenewald Jr. ripped off a small open source software project designed to data-mine FOIA websites that scan and digitize historical documents. Amusingly the public reaction was completely reversed from how people are flipping out about the OkCupid data theft.

Despite the fact that this loser of a human being, John Greenewald, ripped off hundreds of thousands of documents, and never uttered a single word about where he got the data, or how he ripped off an open source software team that had been developing the project for years, nor did he give attribution to the company that did the actual work of scanning the documents—and made them available for free no less. On top of all that this complete parasitic loser even had the balls to try monetize Fold3's work. Yet hilariously people still have the temerity to attack Fold3 and Ancestry.com claiming the company was somehow in the wrong for forcing this attention-whoring sideshow clown to remove the data from his website or face a lawsuit.

The sad truth is people don't care about the actual morality of data theft. They only care about whether or not the data is personally beneficial to them, and if it is, well, ... then it's okay.

Sure seems like it, especially since this just came to light and it does indeed look like people are the ones inserting their bias and controlling exactly what's being promoted.

Uh. You might want to go back and re-read some stuff...like facts. It's the democrats who liked the fairness doctrine, and it was them most recently who tried to get it back in several times in fact. I picked two left-leaning sources. So have some right leaning sources as well. The GOP has been fundamentally against that.

One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.

Clickbait is having a hard time surviving right now. Sites that thrive on it are seeing massive drops in uniques and page views. Whether it's a gawker property or something from vice, it's the same. People have had enough, so that's going to lead to one of two things, either they're going to double down and create a new form of clickbait. Or the media is going to start moving back to actual news. You can't forget the assholes out there either that believe that news isn't to tell the truth, but to reduce harm to those "vulnerable groups." AKA fuck facts, we're going for feels.

A look at an archive of its frontpage is pretty telling.
Note: I had to use archive.is because the Way Back Machine has censored it because of robots.txt.

You mean like this

Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iv...
if you don't subscribe
https://archive.is/nbsND

Power from the two Ivanpah units that serve PG&E last year fetched about $200 a megawatt-hour on average during summer months, and about $135 a megawatt-hour on average the rest of the year, according to sales data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
That compares to an average price of $57 a megawatt-hour for solar power sold under contracts signed in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Power from natural-gas plants went for $35 a megawatt-hour on average in California’s wholesale market last year, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by the Energy Department.

don't have a problem that a whole lot of other people complain about, obviously the problem simply doesn't exist.

Having spent more than enough time playing anthropologist on TRP and other similar sites and pages it boils down to "a whole lot of other people" are massive assholes.

...one loaded with blind assumptions (more like accusations) about the people who do have this problem.

When you read half of the stuff that comes out of their mouth it's not very blind.

If the girl has great tits and ass, I can't be friends with her.Simple as that

Who cares about a woman's personality if she's not hot enough to make my dick get hard?

A sad bunch of man children that toss about words like "alpha" and "beta males" while whining they can't get laid. All while talking down to women, treating them like the 'smartest teenagers in the room'. It doesn't take a lot of time reading what they post to see where the problems are.