Slashdot Mirror

http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

https://twitter.com/eachus/sta...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-21 08:15 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

A "9/11 Truther" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

https://archive.is/G58Im https://archive.is/GuGzE

https://archive.is/TjlMk https://archive.is/uIGnF

https://archive.is/vLlom https://archive.is/Iz0A2

https://archive.is/k10c4 https://archive.is/KFkCq

https://archive.is/XtZO6 https://archive.is/LHZC7

https://archive.is/MKEDO https://archive.is/NNjEv

https://archive.is/B1jsw https://archive.is/dqD3R

https://archive.is/1EDRS https://archive.is/rhYhe

https://archive.is/fvX5f https://archive.is/E9iuB

https://archive.is/RXXHh https://archive.is/upXjj

This is very similar to climate change, where Sky Dragon Slayers like Dr. Latour deny basic physics. A "Sky Dragon Slayer" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

https://twitter.com/eachus/sta...

Re:record-shattering recording instruments by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-21 08:15 · Score: 0 · on NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures In 2015 (nasa.gov)

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

A "9/11 Truther" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

https://archive.is/G58Im https://archive.is/GuGzE

https://archive.is/TjlMk https://archive.is/uIGnF

https://archive.is/vLlom https://archive.is/Iz0A2

https://archive.is/k10c4 https://archive.is/KFkCq

https://archive.is/XtZO6 https://archive.is/LHZC7

https://archive.is/MKEDO https://archive.is/NNjEv

https://archive.is/B1jsw https://archive.is/dqD3R

https://archive.is/1EDRS https://archive.is/rhYhe

https://archive.is/fvX5f https://archive.is/E9iuB

https://archive.is/RXXHh https://archive.is/upXjj

This is very similar to climate change, where Sky Dragon Slayers like Dr. Latour deny basic physics. A "Sky Dragon Slayer" is someone who regurgitates these arguments (they'll deny it, because they deny things the way most people breathe).

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

https://twitter.com/eachus/sta...

Re:You should be anyways by brewthatistrue · 2016-01-15 09:11 · Score: 1 · on Use Code From Stack Overflow? You Must Provide Attribution (stackexchange.com)

also http://archive.is/, for when the Internet Archive fails to comprehend that robots.txt is designed to prevent scraping of URLs not prompted by a human.

Gawker by martinux · 2016-01-15 05:59 · Score: 3, Informative · on Explaining the Lack of Quality Journalism In the Internet Age (gawker.com)

Archive link for those who prefer not to support the reprehensible Gawker: https://archive.is/PP7q2

IMHO Gawker is an absolutely vile clickbait machine that portrays itself as a progressive voice while selling outrage.
It undermines what I consider valid, socially responsible goals by trivialising most of them, generating needless conflict by labelling "bad" people and maintaining a ludicrous left-wing good, right-wing evil narrative. It produces propaganda and hatred for cash.

Nick Denton - the CEO of Gawker - has admitted that the company has a severe empathy problem and tried to relaunch it:
http://www.thewrap.com/nick-de...
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/2...

The problem with journalism is not that one needs an audience, the problem with journalism is that factual reporting is no longer the main goal. Truth is secondary to page-views. Nolan suggests that people are the problem because they won't pay for factual material, http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ demonstrates that one can successfully run a publication that focuses on the pursuit and publication of truth (with a healthy injection of humour).

TFA is an attempt to blame absolutely shitty "journalism" on the audience, what in fact is happening is that those of us who do care about quality journalism recognise Gawker for what it is and don't give it ad-revenue or page-impressions.

Our diversity and multicultural workforce are key by Teriblows · 2016-01-13 17:43 · Score: 1 · on Trend Micro Flaw Could Have Allowed Attacker To Steal All Passwords (csoonline.com)

So much for that... https://archive.is/jdOHs

Re:In b4 "OMG FORBES" by 0100010001010011 · 2016-01-09 07:52 · Score: 1 · on Using Tech To Create Safe and Ethical Retail Supply Chains (forbes.com)

Just use archive.is links:

Using Technology To Create Safe And Ethical Retail Supply Chains, Page 1

Using Technology To Create Safe And Ethical Retail Supply Chains, Page 2

Re:In b4 "OMG FORBES" by 0100010001010011 · 2016-01-09 07:52 · Score: 1 · on Using Tech To Create Safe and Ethical Retail Supply Chains (forbes.com)

Just use archive.is links:

Using Technology To Create Safe And Ethical Retail Supply Chains, Page 1

Using Technology To Create Safe And Ethical Retail Supply Chains, Page 2

Killed by feminism. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-30 12:55 · Score: 0 · on Debian Founder Ian Murdock Has Died (docker.com)

Police woman humiliated him when he was drunk.
He arab spring'd

https://archive.is/cPE6h

Re:Ian Murdoch was a racist by 0100010001010011 · 2015-12-30 10:09 · Score: 1 · on Debian Founder Ian Murdock Has Died (docker.com)

Looks like SJWers on 4Chan were egging him on last night:

https://archive.is/2Cdj1

https://i.imgur.com/A1xlnVi.pn...

Nice! by _KiTA_ · 2015-12-30 07:28 · Score: 5, Interesting · on Twitter Bans 'Hateful Conduct' (reuters.com)

Oh, wow, so no more "Kill All Men" hashtag or "I Drink Male Tears" images? Because those are pretty damned hateful, even though it's apparently socially acceptable to hate men in a way that it's not for women...

(Whisper, Whisper)

Oh, that's still ok? Huh. Well, at least, no more "Men are the source of all school shootings in the world" type posts, right? Because that's a bigoted, ignorant, statement that ignores...

(Whisper, Whisper)

Huh. Well, ok, then at least they're going to block ISIS accounts and the people perpetuating the fake "Max Temkin is a Rapist" hate-crime posts, right? Because the former is a ltieral terrorist organization and the latter is a discredited hoax that people are using to try and destroy someone whose only crime is he's young, male, and heterosexu... 0000%#N$! NO CARRIER

You have been blocked for Thoughtcrime against the Party, please delete your posts to be allowed back in.

All this is going to do is give the psychotic misandric and racist losers (the so called "Social Justice Warriors," the left-wing authoritarian hate-mob that has infested the Liberals in the US) an in so they can continue to use bots to mass-report dissenting opinions and get them banned. They're already doing so, this just codifies it as official Twitter policy.

Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? by martinux · 2015-12-27 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative · on Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com)

GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? by martinux · 2015-12-27 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative · on Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com)

GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? by martinux · 2015-12-27 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative · on Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com)

GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

Re:"Beating the trolls" is it? by martinux · 2015-12-27 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative · on Twitter Says It's Beating the Trolls (betanews.com)

GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

Re:tor? twitter? by Mashiki · 2015-12-14 03:31 · Score: 2, Informative · on Twitter Users Warned About Being Targeted By State-Sponsored Attacks (bbc.com)

Doubtful. Twitter already engages in banning people for wrongthink and forcing people to delete tweets that are engaged in wrongthink as well. You think they'll give an exemption to Tor users? I doubt it, more likely they'll bend over backwards and give the totalitarian governments a hand.

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 16:06 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

no one mentioned Goddard but you, retard. I posted government data, nothing else. Sorry you don't grasp it. #Dumbass [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.

your name is well chosen. You can fuck right off, and I'm going to block your stupid ass now. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 16:06 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

no one mentioned Goddard but you, retard. I posted government data, nothing else. Sorry you don't grasp it. #Dumbass [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.

your name is well chosen. You can fuck right off, and I'm going to block your stupid ass now. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 16:06 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

no one mentioned Goddard but you, retard. I posted government data, nothing else. Sorry you don't grasp it. #Dumbass [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.

your name is well chosen. You can fuck right off, and I'm going to block your stupid ass now. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 16:06 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

no one mentioned Goddard but you, retard. I posted government data, nothing else. Sorry you don't grasp it. #Dumbass [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Hopefully you just didn't read the PSI Slayer link you posted, which repeatedly mentions "Steven Goddard" and his baseless accusations.

your name is well chosen. You can fuck right off, and I'm going to block your stupid ass now. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

You're almost as charming as Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 14:56 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 14:56 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 14:56 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 14:56 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-11 14:56 · Score: -1 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Why do you imagine that a majority of the American public is hardly concerned? Are they all nuts? [Lonny Eachus]

Why did US NAS & 12 other science academies say this? Are they all nuts? "... the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." [Dumb Scientist]

because the data was fudged and we all know it now. Nice try, genius. [SmallCorpses4Sale]

Can you link credible evidence that data cited by the NAS statement was "fudged"? Who's the guilty fudging culprit? [Dumb Scientist]
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/...
principia-scientific.org/breaking-new-c... [SmallCorpses4Sale, 2015-12-11]

Your first link is credible, but it doesn't claim that data cited by the NAS statement were "fudged". If you disagree, please quote the relevant passage explaining what data was "fudged".

Your second link leads to one of the many baseless accusations from PSI Sky Dragon Slayer "Steven Goddard". If that's the most credible evidence you can find, please understand that some American patriots might find the US National Academy of Sciences more credible than a rant on a conspiracy theory website run by psychopathic pedophile John O'Sullivan.

And even the baseless accusations on that conspiracy theory website only pertain to US temperature data. Were those data cited by the NAS statement? No. It's difficult to imagine a dozen other countries signing a statement citing data over a mere ~2% of Earth's surface. Why would that matter to them? Why would such a tiny cherry-picked sample matter to any scientist diagnosing global warming?

Scientists studying global warming use global data. If "Steven Goddard's" conspiracy theories were true, wouldn't raw global data show less warming (or maybe even cooling!) over the last century compared to the "fudged" global surface data?

But once again that's not true. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA's global raw surface temperatures ("without corrections") have warmed faster than the corrected (fudged?) temperatures.

Isn't that the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conspiracy to "fudge" global warming data?

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-07 09:05 · Score: 0 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Oddly, that's also something Lonny Eachus keeps gleefully bragging about: https://archive.is/CWA5S#selec... https://archive.is/iNLJp#selec...

Re:Because the shooter was an American? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-07 09:05 · Score: 0 · on California Attack Has US Rethinking Strategy On Homegrown Terror (nytimes.com)

Oddly, that's also something Lonny Eachus keeps gleefully bragging about: https://archive.is/CWA5S#selec... https://archive.is/iNLJp#selec...

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-06 08:54 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-06 08:54 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-06 08:54 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-06 08:54 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Re:Citation timing by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2015-12-03 06:22 · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia Creates AI System To Filter Out Bad Edits (thestack.com)

Seriously tepples? Enough with the denialism. You're either being mendacious or are so out of touch with the current state of wikipedia you should stop trying to advocate for it. It's ruled by powerful cliques like wikiproject feminism and other unblockables.

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-30 19:19 · Score: -1 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]
@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]
I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Re: Isn't this why computers are great by Mashiki · 2015-11-27 17:57 · Score: 1 · on Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com)

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

The zoe post vs what the media reports.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Really? You should let the courts know asap. My theory that the sky is actually puce in colour should go over well then.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great by Mashiki · 2015-11-27 17:57 · Score: 1 · on Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com)

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

The zoe post vs what the media reports.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Really? You should let the courts know asap. My theory that the sky is actually puce in colour should go over well then.

Re: Isn't this why computers are great by Mashiki · 2015-11-27 17:57 · Score: 1 · on Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com)

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

The zoe post vs what the media reports.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Really? You should let the courts know asap. My theory that the sky is actually puce in colour should go over well then.

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-24 07:14 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

Is Jane really that stupid? That's a good question. I've often pondered alternatives. Maybe "Jane Q. Public" and his equally charming real life identity are just part of some elaborate performance art like the old "Candid Camera". You know the kind of irony that Millennials are into: "Haha, I'm pretending to be a delusional psychopath who thinks he's a very clever lawyer (scientist, surgeon, scholar, etc.)"

Or maybe Jane lost a bet years ago and now has to spend ~90% of his waking hours on Slashdot and Twitter, spreading misinformation and insulting anyone who expresses skepticism at Jane's claims. Or maybe this is Lonny Eachus's cry for help?

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-24 07:14 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

Is Jane really that stupid? That's a good question. I've often pondered alternatives. Maybe "Jane Q. Public" and his equally charming real life identity are just part of some elaborate performance art like the old "Candid Camera". You know the kind of irony that Millennials are into: "Haha, I'm pretending to be a delusional psychopath who thinks he's a very clever lawyer (scientist, surgeon, scholar, etc.)"

Or maybe Jane lost a bet years ago and now has to spend ~90% of his waking hours on Slashdot and Twitter, spreading misinformation and insulting anyone who expresses skepticism at Jane's claims. Or maybe this is Lonny Eachus's cry for help?

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-24 07:14 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

Is Jane really that stupid? That's a good question. I've often pondered alternatives. Maybe "Jane Q. Public" and his equally charming real life identity are just part of some elaborate performance art like the old "Candid Camera". You know the kind of irony that Millennials are into: "Haha, I'm pretending to be a delusional psychopath who thinks he's a very clever lawyer (scientist, surgeon, scholar, etc.)"

Or maybe Jane lost a bet years ago and now has to spend ~90% of his waking hours on Slashdot and Twitter, spreading misinformation and insulting anyone who expresses skepticism at Jane's claims. Or maybe this is Lonny Eachus's cry for help?

Re:What purpose does registration serve? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-11-24 07:14 · Score: 0 · on FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

Is Jane really that stupid? That's a good question. I've often pondered alternatives. Maybe "Jane Q. Public" and his equally charming real life identity are just part of some elaborate performance art like the old "Candid Camera". You know the kind of irony that Millennials are into: "Haha, I'm pretending to be a delusional psychopath who thinks he's a very clever lawyer (scientist, surgeon, scholar, etc.)"

Or maybe Jane lost a bet years ago and now has to spend ~90% of his waking hours on Slashdot and Twitter, spreading misinformation and insulting anyone who expresses skepticism at Jane's claims. Or maybe this is Lonny Eachus's cry for help?