Who doesn't? I always thought it was the norm to plot the overthrow of your wife/boss/unions/government. Just as long as you don't implement it.
Some years ago, I was told there was some "law" against saying you were going to kill the President. I don't know if that's actually true, but it doesn't sound in line with other law about this kind of thing.
This is a great example of how the takedown process established by DMCA is inherently abusive. Lots of perfectly legitimate information is taken down with no proof of anything, just because some copyright troll wants to say so.
The biggest difference is that science accepts it's lumps and corrects them.
Yes but...
Science has bigger problems correcting them, and takes much longer to do so, when political and financial pressure tempt people to look the other way. Scientists are people too.
That, and petition your senator and congresscritter to have this poorly written, costly law, fixed to be less poor and less expensive.
The easiest way to "fix" this law is to remove the takedown provisions altogether.
Prior to DMCA, a person had to show copyright infringement in court before they could force someone to remove a work. That was a reasonable law that actually worked. People were not inclined to infringe, because the penalties could be fairly severe.
But as part of the same package, it also used to be that you had to actually CLAIM a copyright in order to enforce it. That's why we have little copyright symbols in our charactersets. Copyright (C) 2005 blah blah.
As we have clearly -- I mean very clearly -- seen, things were better they way they were. The current setup panders to the corporate abusers, and in some cases even the small abusers, but in any event the abusers. Anybody can put anything up on the internet and rails hell over even a minor issue that turns out to be "fair use" under copyright law... but they've already been ordered to take their website down until they can prove it.
This amounts to shifting the burden of proof -- and all the risks -- to the defendant. That's not the way American law is supposed to work.
The courts do and have sent people to jail for fantasies. It is called conspiracy.
NO.
As this judge correctly pointed out, there is a difference between discussing fantasies and conspiracy. One is mere thoughts, or discussion of ideas. The other requires not just an agreement among parties to do something specific, in the Unites States almost always an "overt act" must be carried out to make it actual conspiracy.
For example: two guys discuss for years that they want to rob the rich guy down the street. As long as they are just talking, they haven't broken any laws. They can plan all they want to. They can fantasize about using bombs, shotguns, pitchforks, or whatever the hell they please in order to do the job. But as soon as they meet in a parking lot to go do it, or one of them starts building one of the discussed bombs in his basement, they are guilty of conspiracy.
The point is: in the U.S. you generally have freedom of speech and you can say pretty much whatever you want. But as soon as you ACT to carry out some crime you were discussing with someone, you are guilty of conspiracy. THAT is the difference between "thought crime" and actual crime.
Wikipedia puts it this way:
Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act...
On the other hand, I understand from several recent writings that lots of non-statistical experts have been finding that R also makes it Easy To Do It Wrong.
Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.
Correction: that discrepancy might not have been found by Heller, but he reported it, and it was the same improper "infilling" of data which caused it.
I am also going to point out here that the problem with USHCN data which was pointed out by "Steven Goddard" is not just some little inconsequential little blip or artifact. It is a serious problem with the quality of data we have been receiving for years from USHCN.
Their comment that they "intended" to "fix" it at some undefined in the future is outrageously insufficient. They have admitted that they knew of a genuine problem affecting the quality of their data, for some time, and did not make that information known to others. That is inexcusable in circumstances such as these.
Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.
You have made it abundantly clear that you are incapable of maintaining "D4" arguments yourself, either here or on your blog. And in the last few days you have utterly demolished any pretense you might have of scientific objectivity... by your own clear words.
It is far past time for you to go away. In fact that time was years ago. You are making a fool of yourself AND making that a problem for me at the same time.
I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:
Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.
Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:
One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.
At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.
I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.
"Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.
The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.
I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?
Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.
That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.
Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.
I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen
Oh cool... I have an old Nokia which supports IRDA.
I've had 2 HP calculators -- and a printer to go with them -- the supported IRDA. I think I still have the printer.
Some phones still do. Or do again, not sure which. At least the transmission half. I know that at least some, if not all, of those phones with built-in infrared remote-control capability also support IRDA.
If this interpretation of IRS's intent is correct, it's ridiculous.
Let's say I go to a food bank (a charity). Hmmm... I could use that can of tomato sauce to shatter somebody's windshield.
I could use a potato to block someone's car exhaust. Or -- naughty of naughties -- use it as ammo in a potato cannon! (Which, by the way, ATF has ruled "not a gun".)
Hey... I could even use the cans from that tomato sauce to make a potato cannon... now we're starting to get somewhere!
I guess we should probably just eliminate "charities", huh? I mean, that T-shirt from Goodwill could be used as a diaper.
Just to end this exchange where it probably should end (other than, that is, before you even started it), I will remind you that the things I have been saying about your behavior are not just my opinion:
JQP: try not to let him get to you too much; while he likely does reside in the US where he could face lawsuits/fines/jailtime/ostracization/severely limited job pool for the stuff he's written (if it is indeed the same guy)...
Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.
And this is why I am done here. You haven't demonstrated a single lie. So how do you conclude that I am a "pathological liar"?
You keep making the same claims, and arguing (incorrectly) about them different ways, and you still haven't made your case.
Let's be very clear: for whatever reason (I would say obsessive reason because *I* think that's obvious, but I'll leave it up to others to decide), you have decided to intentionally try to damage my reputation and character in a public forum. I don't know what your real reasons are, but I don't believe your stated reasons to be genuine. Not that it really matters. What matters is results: you have made claims about be that simply are not true, and which could damage my character and reputation, without any real evidence to support them. And you have made those claims in public, repeatedly, with what I sincerely believe to be malicious intent, with the knowledge that they not just might but would almost certainly be seen by others.
I could go on, but I won't.
If you don't see that you seem to be determined to step hip-deep in a puddle of shit that you worked hard to create yourself, and that I have warned you about it for years now, then what happens later is not my responsibility. You have only yourself to blame.
Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation.
What is wrong with you? Why do you think it matters whether you are referring to a sexual orientation or an entire gender? That doesn't change the fact that it is sexist stereotyping. Or don't you know what "sexist" means?
it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely.
It can be. Are you claiming that it is exclusive to guys? I certainly did not claim that. Are you attempting yet another offensive sexist stereotype? Or is it the same one again? So have conflated so many things together, I just don't know what you mean.
Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?
Yet again, that isn't what I said. I mean, that one wasn't even close to anything I actually said or meant. My own sentences have been thrown away and replaced by different words and meaning... yet you continue to attribute them to me. And I am confused, or rather you seem to be. In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.
And I repeat: I am done playing this game with you. I am not going to respond to it again. I have said the things I felt I was compelled to say in self defense. (Which would not have been necessary, had it not been for your obsessive and outrageous attacks on my character.)
And you STILL haven't come up with any examples of me "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud".
So I am done here. Unless any of that changes, I'm gone from this discussion. Talk to yourself all you like.
Except, of course, you're not REALLY talking to yourself, are you? You're talking to the whole public internet. And you have known that all along, yes? Isn't that the whole point of what you are doing?
You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.
Another example of your seeming inability to quote someone without distorting their words. Do you see me claiming anywhere that your comment offended me? What I said was that it was an offensive stereotype, not that it offended me, particularly, since I was not the one being stereotyped. I think. Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.
Let's make no mistake, though: I AM offended by your behavior here, and some of the things you have tried to claim are facts about me, or things I have said. But not about that.
Though maybe I should be, since if you can be offended on behalf of an entire gender, then so can I.
If you are "contrasting" it with women, then you are equating it with men.
It is just as generally offensive to equate that kind of obnoxious behavior with a gender as to associate it with a sexual orientation. WTF? Have you no morals at all? Will you say any old offensive thing just to try to make me look bad?
Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.
Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon [talkorigins.org] has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
And just to be even more clear: by "deliberately malicious act" I mean I have no choice but to believe it was an attempt to besmirch my character by trying to publicly associate me with ideas that you know very well -- because I told you before -- I do not believe or support in any way.
But then, let's be honest. I have very good reason to believe that "besmirching my character" has been your intent all along.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
And just so we're clear, I will tell you in plain terms that your attempt to associate my name with Young Earth Creationists is offensive in the extreme. We have discussed this issue before and I do not support their ideas, their methods, or their cause, as I made clear then.
And you knew that, yet you tried to associate my name with them again anyway. I have no choice but to believe that was a deliberately malicious act.
So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?
Jesus Christ, you actually seem to be DENSE! I have already explained this. Is English your third language or something?
My words stand on their own. The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time.
And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it.
And yet again, you yank my words out of context, stick them together in a way I did not, and try to apply your own bizarre version of reality to them.
Your insistence on taking things out of context and trying to distort them -- which by now it is beginning to seem you are not capable of NOT doing -- is not my problem. Except to the extent that you have deliberately been trying to make it a problem for me, that is.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making?
For example: earlier, I linked to the article on trolls because it is evident to anybody familiar with "social media" that what you have been doing is trolling, in the extreme. I doubt such a third party would have any trouble at all recognizing that.
But your linking to an article on "young Earthers" is completely -- yet again -- out of context and has nothing at all to do with me. I am not a "young earther", or a "creationist", or anything of the sort, nor do I ever recall defending their positions, at any time in my life.
But knowing you, I suspect that you're going to try yet another non-sequitur ad-hominem on me, just as you have so many times before.
Slashdot Mirror
Who doesn't? I always thought it was the norm to plot the overthrow of your wife/boss/unions/government. Just as long as you don't implement it.
Some years ago, I was told there was some "law" against saying you were going to kill the President. I don't know if that's actually true, but it doesn't sound in line with other law about this kind of thing.
Freedom, in the land of the just.
And you can blame every bit of it on the DMCA.
This is a great example of how the takedown process established by DMCA is inherently abusive. Lots of perfectly legitimate information is taken down with no proof of anything, just because some copyright troll wants to say so.
That ain't America.
The biggest difference is that science accepts it's lumps and corrects them.
Yes but...
Science has bigger problems correcting them, and takes much longer to do so, when political and financial pressure tempt people to look the other way. Scientists are people too.
That, and petition your senator and congresscritter to have this poorly written, costly law, fixed to be less poor and less expensive.
The easiest way to "fix" this law is to remove the takedown provisions altogether.
Prior to DMCA, a person had to show copyright infringement in court before they could force someone to remove a work. That was a reasonable law that actually worked. People were not inclined to infringe, because the penalties could be fairly severe.
But as part of the same package, it also used to be that you had to actually CLAIM a copyright in order to enforce it. That's why we have little copyright symbols in our charactersets. Copyright (C) 2005 blah blah.
As we have clearly -- I mean very clearly -- seen, things were better they way they were. The current setup panders to the corporate abusers, and in some cases even the small abusers, but in any event the abusers. Anybody can put anything up on the internet and rails hell over even a minor issue that turns out to be "fair use" under copyright law... but they've already been ordered to take their website down until they can prove it.
This amounts to shifting the burden of proof -- and all the risks -- to the defendant. That's not the way American law is supposed to work.
The courts do and have sent people to jail for fantasies. It is called conspiracy.
NO.
As this judge correctly pointed out, there is a difference between discussing fantasies and conspiracy. One is mere thoughts, or discussion of ideas. The other requires not just an agreement among parties to do something specific, in the Unites States almost always an "overt act" must be carried out to make it actual conspiracy.
For example: two guys discuss for years that they want to rob the rich guy down the street. As long as they are just talking, they haven't broken any laws. They can plan all they want to. They can fantasize about using bombs, shotguns, pitchforks, or whatever the hell they please in order to do the job. But as soon as they meet in a parking lot to go do it, or one of them starts building one of the discussed bombs in his basement, they are guilty of conspiracy.
The point is: in the U.S. you generally have freedom of speech and you can say pretty much whatever you want. But as soon as you ACT to carry out some crime you were discussing with someone, you are guilty of conspiracy. THAT is the difference between "thought crime" and actual crime.
Wikipedia puts it this way:
Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act...
Yes, but...
This is what R was basically designed to do.
On the other hand, I understand from several recent writings that lots of non-statistical experts have been finding that R also makes it Easy To Do It Wrong.
What exactly was the expected outcome again?
It's not hard to show that this BS excuse they use could lead to never-ending expansion. That's why we must stop it about 10 years ago.
Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.
Correction: that discrepancy might not have been found by Heller, but he reported it, and it was the same improper "infilling" of data which caused it.
I am also going to point out here that the problem with USHCN data which was pointed out by "Steven Goddard" is not just some little inconsequential little blip or artifact. It is a serious problem with the quality of data we have been receiving for years from USHCN.
Their comment that they "intended" to "fix" it at some undefined in the future is outrageously insufficient. They have admitted that they knew of a genuine problem affecting the quality of their data, for some time, and did not make that information known to others. That is inexcusable in circumstances such as these.
Heller showed that at least in one case, improperly "infilling" data led to a difference of 1.35 degrees C. That's an astounding failure on the part of NCDC.
Addendum to the above:
You have made it abundantly clear that you are incapable of maintaining "D4" arguments yourself, either here or on your blog. And in the last few days you have utterly demolished any pretense you might have of scientific objectivity... by your own clear words.
It is far past time for you to go away. In fact that time was years ago. You are making a fool of yourself AND making that a problem for me at the same time.
I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:
Since NCDC has already admitted not only that some of "Steven Goddard's" criticisms were known and that they "intended" to "fix" them at some undefinable time in the future, this is a completely specious argument. Note also that any claims of "fraud" were quoting Heller, not my own words. You should follow current events. You might learn something.
Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:
One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesnâ(TM)t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.
At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldnâ(TM)t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.
I have responded to this elsewhere. You fail to distinguish between carbon anc CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. Except for the special case of fine particulates (more on that below), carbon is simply NOT normally a pollutant.
"Carbon pollution" is a politically-driven loaded phrase INTENDED TO sway public opinion, for clear and obvious political reasons. NOT a "conspiracy", that was YOUR word used elsewhere, not my own.
The reason carbon particulates in the atmosphere are a special case is that just about ANYTHING that is turned into fine particulates and spewed into the atmosphere can be considered a pollutant. So there is absolutely nothing unusual about carbon in that regard, and removes any justification for singling it out as a pollutant.
I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no?
Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that.
That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.
Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context.
I have been trying to see if YOU'RE learning, about how to have a logical argument without straw-man, insults, ad-hominem, taking others' commen
Oh cool... I have an old Nokia which supports IRDA.
I've had 2 HP calculators -- and a printer to go with them -- the supported IRDA. I think I still have the printer.
Some phones still do. Or do again, not sure which. At least the transmission half. I know that at least some, if not all, of those phones with built-in infrared remote-control capability also support IRDA.
If we're discussing distance communication with light, then raised again.
If this interpretation of IRS's intent is correct, it's ridiculous.
Let's say I go to a food bank (a charity). Hmmm... I could use that can of tomato sauce to shatter somebody's windshield.
I could use a potato to block someone's car exhaust. Or -- naughty of naughties -- use it as ammo in a potato cannon! (Which, by the way, ATF has ruled "not a gun".)
Hey... I could even use the cans from that tomato sauce to make a potato cannon... now we're starting to get somewhere!
I guess we should probably just eliminate "charities", huh? I mean, that T-shirt from Goodwill could be used as a diaper.
JQP: try not to let him get to you too much; while he likely does reside in the US where he could face lawsuits/fines/jailtime/ostracization/severely limited job pool for the stuff he's written (if it is indeed the same guy)...
Exactly the reply I expected. I guess nobody can say you aren't consistent. Or maybe "predictable" is a better word.
Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.
And this is why I am done here. You haven't demonstrated a single lie. So how do you conclude that I am a "pathological liar"?
You keep making the same claims, and arguing (incorrectly) about them different ways, and you still haven't made your case.
Let's be very clear: for whatever reason (I would say obsessive reason because *I* think that's obvious, but I'll leave it up to others to decide), you have decided to intentionally try to damage my reputation and character in a public forum. I don't know what your real reasons are, but I don't believe your stated reasons to be genuine. Not that it really matters. What matters is results: you have made claims about be that simply are not true, and which could damage my character and reputation, without any real evidence to support them. And you have made those claims in public, repeatedly, with what I sincerely believe to be malicious intent, with the knowledge that they not just might but would almost certainly be seen by others.
I could go on, but I won't.
If you don't see that you seem to be determined to step hip-deep in a puddle of shit that you worked hard to create yourself, and that I have warned you about it for years now, then what happens later is not my responsibility. You have only yourself to blame.
Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation.
What is wrong with you? Why do you think it matters whether you are referring to a sexual orientation or an entire gender? That doesn't change the fact that it is sexist stereotyping. Or don't you know what "sexist" means?
Sheesh. Go back to school, take logic 101.
it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely.
It can be. Are you claiming that it is exclusive to guys? I certainly did not claim that. Are you attempting yet another offensive sexist stereotype? Or is it the same one again? So have conflated so many things together, I just don't know what you mean.
Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?
Yet again, that isn't what I said. I mean, that one wasn't even close to anything I actually said or meant. My own sentences have been thrown away and replaced by different words and meaning... yet you continue to attribute them to me. And I am confused, or rather you seem to be. In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.
And I repeat: I am done playing this game with you. I am not going to respond to it again. I have said the things I felt I was compelled to say in self defense. (Which would not have been necessary, had it not been for your obsessive and outrageous attacks on my character.)
And you STILL haven't come up with any examples of me "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud".
So I am done here. Unless any of that changes, I'm gone from this discussion. Talk to yourself all you like.
Except, of course, you're not REALLY talking to yourself, are you? You're talking to the whole public internet. And you have known that all along, yes? Isn't that the whole point of what you are doing?
You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.
Another example of your seeming inability to quote someone without distorting their words. Do you see me claiming anywhere that your comment offended me? What I said was that it was an offensive stereotype, not that it offended me, particularly, since I was not the one being stereotyped. I think. Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.
Let's make no mistake, though: I AM offended by your behavior here, and some of the things you have tried to claim are facts about me, or things I have said. But not about that.
Though maybe I should be, since if you can be offended on behalf of an entire gender, then so can I.
Typographical error.
If you are "contrasting" it with women, then you are equating it with men.
It is just as generally offensive to equate that kind of obnoxious behavior with a gender as to associate it with a sexual orientation. WTF? Have you no morals at all? Will you say any old offensive thing just to try to make me look bad?
Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.
Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon [talkorigins.org] has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
And just to be even more clear: by "deliberately malicious act" I mean I have no choice but to believe it was an attempt to besmirch my character by trying to publicly associate me with ideas that you know very well -- because I told you before -- I do not believe or support in any way.
But then, let's be honest. I have very good reason to believe that "besmirching my character" has been your intent all along.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
And just so we're clear, I will tell you in plain terms that your attempt to associate my name with Young Earth Creationists is offensive in the extreme. We have discussed this issue before and I do not support their ideas, their methods, or their cause, as I made clear then.
And you knew that, yet you tried to associate my name with them again anyway. I have no choice but to believe that was a deliberately malicious act.
So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?
Jesus Christ, you actually seem to be DENSE! I have already explained this. Is English your third language or something?
My words stand on their own. The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time.
And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it.
And yet again, you yank my words out of context, stick them together in a way I did not, and try to apply your own bizarre version of reality to them.
Your insistence on taking things out of context and trying to distort them -- which by now it is beginning to seem you are not capable of NOT doing -- is not my problem. Except to the extent that you have deliberately been trying to make it a problem for me, that is.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making?
For example: earlier, I linked to the article on trolls because it is evident to anybody familiar with "social media" that what you have been doing is trolling, in the extreme. I doubt such a third party would have any trouble at all recognizing that.
But your linking to an article on "young Earthers" is completely -- yet again -- out of context and has nothing at all to do with me. I am not a "young earther", or a "creationist", or anything of the sort, nor do I ever recall defending their positions, at any time in my life.
But knowing you, I suspect that you're going to try yet another non-sequitur ad-hominem on me, just as you have so many times before.