Slashdot Mirror

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

And I will suggest another motivation for your "forum swapping" when you say you are "responding". I suspect you do that because it helps you misrepresent statements out-of-context. It's a reasonable deduction. It might not be, if you hadn't established a strong pattern of doing exactly that. Much of it recorded for posterity, of course. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

I will suggest another motivation for Lonny's endless whining. Best case scenario: Lonny Eachus is a paranoid crackpot who suffers from early-onset dementia.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

So I'm copying this "response" of yours, as yet another example of your out-of-context MISREPRESENTATION. Also, I am not obligated to do things on your timeline or at your insistence. Your notion that I am is ludicrous. In response, I can say that FIVE YEARS later, you still haven't learned what out-of-context misrepresentation is. Despite the fact that I have specifically warned you about it on innumerable occasions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Deep breaths, cupcake. Deep... breaths...

Out of generosity, I will give you this hint: some things I did NOT do, because you tried to verbally coerce me. And I will not be coerced by the likes of you, come Hell or high water, as the saying goes. So again it comes back to your not being able to see the ramifications of your own actions. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

As another scientist noted, it's interesting other people are responsible for cupcake's behaviour.

First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

First, no, if you want to respond to tweets in the future, you will do it on Twitter. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is adorable when cupcake gives orders.

Second, no, that was NOT "the context". I had very good reasons for cussing at you, and that wasn’t it. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Yeah, it was a complete coincidence that cupcake was cussing at me while doubling-down on cupcake's absurd Slayer claim. Hey, cupcake might be right. Cupcake's "very good reasons for cussing" at me might be his crippling anger management problem and insecurity over his lack of any scientific experience.

I told you years ago that your out-of-context bullshit was going to get you in trouble. You should have listened. Your utter inability to see any wrongdoing in your own actions is going to be your downfall. At the time, I didn’t expect that trouble to involve ME, and said so. But so be it. You made it so. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-26]

Cupcake is even more adorable when cupcake makes statements which certainly aren't threats. Not when cupcake makes them. Cupcake is special.

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

By the way... I don't care if the public knows what I think about you. But you removed the contexts. Yet again. It's very telling that you didn't include any of the things that prompted those opinions from me. No context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

The context is that you were cussing at me because I refuted Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. From the same conversation:

... 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 seeming to realize your Slayer claims violate "kindergarten-level physics". That's how much Lonny's "word" is worth.

@DanaRohrabacher He has expressed the view that a scientist is only a worthy human being if he/she agrees with DumbSci. Else a criminal. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Unbelievable! Lonny baselessly whines about being "libeled" and maliciously lies about me to a member of Congress. Lonny can't link to me expressing that disgusting view, because I never did. Lonny Eachus is lying again. As usual, he's projecting his own hysterical claims:

YOU should be put in jail for the ethical equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater... when there wasn't a fire. THAT DOES HARM. Real cost, real damage. You're a criminal. And not in some hypothetical future, but right now. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

In contrast, I've politely disagreed with scientists without once calling anyone a criminal or a "despicable human being" (presumably meaning "not worthy") like Jane/Lonny Eachus does.

@DanaRohrabacher You might ask him about his own comments re: scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, etc. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-25]

Why? I've said Dr. Spencer is wrong. Lonny also clai

... this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

... This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-13]

Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?

Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.

... this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

... This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-13]

Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?

Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.

... this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

... This is the same NAS of which I caught you not long ago cherry-picking quotes which supported your agenda, when in fact the entire paragraph and subsequent paragraph actually supported what I had asserted. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-13]

Maybe Jane doesn't link to that record because anyone who clicks on it will realize Jane and "Steven Goddard" are cherry-picking quotes from a NAS if-then statement that don't apply in our universe. They might notice that the NAS's if-then statement that does apply in our universe was quite accurate. Jane repeatedly "forgets" to link it, because then people could see the full context. Isn't that naughty?

Jane probably won't appreciate the irony that he's dismissing the US NAS because he can't stop misrepresenting a cherry-picked quote from a NAS report written 40 years ago while (ironically) whining to a member of Congress about how I'm quoting things from 6 years ago.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms? Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.

Oh you don't know about the SJW's pulling fire alarms, trying to drown people out so they can't speak, and so on? And those names? Very much related, so are their followers. That was a coherent argument after all. I'm sure you'd also support someone like sarah nyberg, you know the one that's being all buddy-buddy with their SJW friends, after it came out that they're a pedophile and actively perused their 8 year old cousin.

So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.

Of course that's not social justice, or even justice.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Fire alarms? Rather than just making vague accusations and then posting unrelated lists of names how about you form a coherent argument.

Oh you don't know about the SJW's pulling fire alarms, trying to drown people out so they can't speak, and so on? And those names? Very much related, so are their followers. That was a coherent argument after all. I'm sure you'd also support someone like sarah nyberg, you know the one that's being all buddy-buddy with their SJW friends, after it came out that they're a pedophile and actively perused their 8 year old cousin.

So you have actually gone out and fought for social justice! A real warrior! Not just a fake internet one.

Of course that's not social justice, or even justice.

Female assertions that men are “not in touch with their emotions” are BULLSHIT. They ARE. They’re just not what you want them to be. Learn. ... “Men are not in touch with their emotions” is a convenient lie women tell themselves to excuse their own meddling.

How do Slashdot gals respond to Lonny's claims about BULLSHIT female assertions and meddling?

Female assertions that men are “not in touch with their emotions” are BULLSHIT. They ARE. They’re just not what you want them to be. Learn. ... “Men are not in touch with their emotions” is a convenient lie women tell themselves to excuse their own meddling.

How do Slashdot gals respond to Lonny's claims about BULLSHIT female assertions and meddling?

But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

... I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything. So once again you are proven to be lying. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you owe it to yourself to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And don't you think the accusations of lying you're hurling at NASA, CU, the NAS, et al. are undermined when you accuse someone of lying just for noting that you've spent years regurgitating Slayer claims? Aren't you worried that posterity will find out you were actually "repeating yourself" by continuing to double down on your Slayer nonsense even to the bitter end of this comment thread where you were repeatedly and politely asked to give your reply to that physics problem which you insisted you had?

... So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

It's so cute how Jane pretends I haven't answered that question. Once again: Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

Even if Jane/Lonny Eachus thinks his own intellectual integrity is a lost cause, he should at least pretend to show empathy towards others. If only to blend in. He should remember that khallow went Sky Dragon Slayer because of Jane's argument. Since Jane/Lonny later seemed to realize this argument violates "kindergarten-level physics", doesn't Jane have a responsibility to let khallow know that he went Sky Dragon Slayer over a bogus argument that Jane calls "an insult to an adult discussion"?

Otherwise, how does Jane/Lonny justify promoting this utter bullshit without consequences?

If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) ... [Ja

But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

... I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything. So once again you are proven to be lying. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you owe it to yourself to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And don't you think the accusations of lying you're hurling at NASA, CU, the NAS, et al. are undermined when you accuse someone of lying just for noting that you've spent years regurgitating Slayer claims? Aren't you worried that posterity will find out you were actually "repeating yourself" by continuing to double down on your Slayer nonsense even to the bitter end of this comment thread where you were repeatedly and politely asked to give your reply to that physics problem which you insisted you had?

... So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

It's so cute how Jane pretends I haven't answered that question. Once again: Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

Even if Jane/Lonny Eachus thinks his own intellectual integrity is a lost cause, he should at least pretend to show empathy towards others. If only to blend in. He should remember that khallow went Sky Dragon Slayer because of Jane's argument. Since Jane/Lonny later seemed to realize this argument violates "kindergarten-level physics", doesn't Jane have a responsibility to let khallow know that he went Sky Dragon Slayer over a bogus argument that Jane calls "an insult to an adult discussion"?

Otherwise, how does Jane/Lonny justify promoting this utter bullshit without consequences?

If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) ... [Ja

But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

... I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything. So once again you are proven to be lying. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you owe it to yourself to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And don't you think the accusations of lying you're hurling at NASA, CU, the NAS, et al. are undermined when you accuse someone of lying just for noting that you've spent years regurgitating Slayer claims? Aren't you worried that posterity will find out you were actually "repeating yourself" by continuing to double down on your Slayer nonsense even to the bitter end of this comment thread where you were repeatedly and politely asked to give your reply to that physics problem which you insisted you had?

... So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

It's so cute how Jane pretends I haven't answered that question. Once again: Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

Even if Jane/Lonny Eachus thinks his own intellectual integrity is a lost cause, he should at least pretend to show empathy towards others. If only to blend in. He should remember that khallow went Sky Dragon Slayer because of Jane's argument. Since Jane/Lonny later seemed to realize this argument violates "kindergarten-level physics", doesn't Jane have a responsibility to let khallow know that he went Sky Dragon Slayer over a bogus argument that Jane calls "an insult to an adult discussion"?

Otherwise, how does Jane/Lonny justify promoting this utter bullshit without consequences?

If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) ... [Ja

But again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny Eachus was just honestly fooled by that cult as long as he refuses to retract his Slayer claims. Don't you want to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims?

... I have nothing further to say to you about that which I have not already stated repeatedly, to you and to others, and I have no reason to repeat myself yet again. This assertion is completely baseless, and even if it were not, I don't owe you anything. So once again you are proven to be lying. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you owe it to yourself to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And don't you think the accusations of lying you're hurling at NASA, CU, the NAS, et al. are undermined when you accuse someone of lying just for noting that you've spent years regurgitating Slayer claims? Aren't you worried that posterity will find out you were actually "repeating yourself" by continuing to double down on your Slayer nonsense even to the bitter end of this comment thread where you were repeatedly and politely asked to give your reply to that physics problem which you insisted you had?

... So once again: what is your purpose for posting these proven lies, unless it is to try to defame me or imply guilt by association? You still haven't answered that question. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

It's so cute how Jane pretends I haven't answered that question. Once again: Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

Even if Jane/Lonny Eachus thinks his own intellectual integrity is a lost cause, he should at least pretend to show empathy towards others. If only to blend in. He should remember that khallow went Sky Dragon Slayer because of Jane's argument. Since Jane/Lonny later seemed to realize this argument violates "kindergarten-level physics", doesn't Jane have a responsibility to let khallow know that he went Sky Dragon Slayer over a bogus argument that Jane calls "an insult to an adult discussion"?

Otherwise, how does Jane/Lonny justify promoting this utter bullshit without consequences?

If Jane/Lonny Eachus really didn't know that he was wrong to claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, then he could easily show that by retracting his claim. But he still hasn't done that, even though he's had months to find the necessary few seconds. Why not, Jane?

Because to the best of my knowledge (which YOU prompted me to look up, by the way), none of them have. That guy name Manuel you found (I have no idea how) ... [Ja

There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing. The issue isn't settled. ... again, there have been more recent papers as well. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, don't you see the irony here? I repeatedly gave you links and even gave you ready-to-run source code with data included, all showing that Houston and Dean 2011 was a massive cherry-pick. In response, you actually cited Houston and Dean 2011! Why, if all these other more recent papers (which Jane doesn't even name) supposedly exist? Again, read the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

If Jane is hiding blockbuster peer-reviewed papers that overturn that latest 2013 literature review, why would Jane keep them secret? Unless they don't exist, and as usual Jane is just 100% bluster.

... if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Good grief. Jane, you're slipping again. The Humlum paper you and other Sky Dragon Slayers promoted had NOTHING to do with sea level rise! Here's what the Humlum paper was about:

Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

Ferdinand

Female assertions that men are “not in touch with their emotions” are BULLSHIT. They ARE. They’re just not what you want them to be. Learn. ... “Men are not in touch with their emotions” is a convenient lie women tell themselves to excuse their own meddling.

How do Slashdot gals respond to Lonny's claims about BULLSHIT female assertions and meddling?

Female assertions that men are “not in touch with their emotions” are BULLSHIT. They ARE. They’re just not what you want them to be. Learn. ... “Men are not in touch with their emotions” is a convenient lie women tell themselves to excuse their own meddling.

How do Slashdot gals respond to Lonny's claims about BULLSHIT female assertions and meddling?

Be careful. When Watts was reminded of the three articles at WUWT making that silly claim, he pretended not to remember them.

$300 million? Oh, that's right, the executive who pushed Intel this direction is leaving now. Here's her announcement to leave: https://archive.is/egdkd Here's her announcement for the Diversity Program. https://archive.is/YYbrY Here's where that $300 million came from: https://archive.is/EIqxl

$300 million? Oh, that's right, the executive who pushed Intel this direction is leaving now. Here's her announcement to leave: https://archive.is/egdkd Here's her announcement for the Diversity Program. https://archive.is/YYbrY Here's where that $300 million came from: https://archive.is/EIqxl