"You are, as you're poorly attempting to use "retarded 5-year-old logic" to argue that "Your views are hypocritical" isn't equivalent to explicitly saying "You are a hypocrite"."
It's not, you're just not smart enough to understand the difference I guess.
And that's funny liar, if that's true, then why did YOU say I didn't call YOU a hypocrite?
Were you lying then or now?
You lost liar, and your desperation right now proves you know it.
Which one is the lie liar? How do you say two completely opposite things, then have the balls to call ME names when I have evidence in black and white that you're lying?
"You called me a hypocrite"
Then why did you say I didn't liar?
How fucking messed up are you?
"Which is provably irrelevant"
In other words, you can't refute it, so it's irrelevant. Again, exactly what I expected from a liar like you.
"Arguing with you is like arguing with a retarded 5-year-old."
And arguing with you is like arguing with a liar. No, actually, it IS arguing with a liar.
Go ahead and claim otherwise, while everyone can read the quotes that prove it.
"I gave links and evidence. You gave nothing but a statement which my evidence makes clear is quite wrong.
Care to back your statement up with more than, well, than not a god damn thing like you currently have?"
Support your statements like I did or fuck off.
"What we are discussing is the accusation that the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to alert the public to the global warming problem are part of some huge hoax, intended to get money for themselves."
No, we're not. I don't give a fuck what you thought YOU were discussing, but that was not what I was discussing, and YOU responded to ME.
Also, that was never the accusation, that's a stupid childish straw man that you concocted because reality is irrefutable. I never claimed that ANYWHERE, so don't argue it with me.
"Ok, you never called me a hypocrite, you merely called my viewpoints hypocritical."
This is the kind of accuracy that is present in your though process. It shows in your posts.
"In other words, your point is trivially disproven but you don't want to admit it and refuse to even consider the possibility that your point is stupid."
No cunt, in other words, I made a very clear point, you did nothing but run off at the mouth and avoid it, and I don't give a fuck what you think because, as you already admitted, you aren't reading what I say, you're reading what you think and making it into what I say.
You didn't refute a single thing I said, you just spouted off and were wrong. Why would I give a fuck what you think when you make false accusations because you're reading comprehension sucks?
I gave links and facts. You gave nothing, but keep saying you've done something to refute me.
It's that kind of reasoning that made you think I called you a hypocrite, and you were wrong about that too.
Get back to me when your reading comprehension improves.
"Yes, $83,000 is a low salary for someone with a doctorate. Researchers get low salaries."
It's more that physicians (MD) or Attorneys (JD) both of whom have a doctorate They get more than psychologists with PsyD's, and Principals with EdD's. The site I linked to says they're not low, RELATIVELY which was the original claim.
Just saying "Researchers get low salaries" without evidence (which I provided and you did not) is pointless.
I gave links and evidence. You gave nothing but a statement which my evidence makes clear is quite wrong.
Care to back your statement up with more than, well, than not a god damn thing like you currently have?
"The reality of scientific funding has nothing to do with the fantasy wherein scientists get together in smoke-filled back rooms and privately decide what conclusions they're going to reach before they apply for grants."
And no one anywhere claimed as much. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of hyperbole speaks to the strength of your point.
"There is nothing hypocritical about what I said."
The time honored refrain of the hypocrite. "Nuh-uhhhh...Nu-uhhh..."
"Unlike, say, the NSF, oil companies do fund studies which reach pre-determined conclusions"
And some don't. Pretending that studies that diagree with your viewpoint are poisoned because of it is moronic. Judge each study on its individual merits, unless you're not interested in science but ideology.
People bend their ethics in the presence of money. Your pet scientists do it too. That was my only point, and frankly, it's dead nuts irrefutable.
If your point was that you were completely wrong, then yes.
You said they get paid LOW SALARIES" and I showed you were wrong.
Why be a dick about it when you get proven wrong?
"My question, what kind of person tries to obfuscate the facts about global warming by trying to smear the researchers, saying they are only in it for the money?"
No one did that, what kind of liar relies on straw men like you just did when they can't refute my point?
"So... are you paid, or a dupe?"
So, is your point so weak that you result to slandering people when it gets crushed like I just did to it?
"On the other hand you have dedicated scientists getting research grants to study the problem."
And if the problem were not as bad as we thought, or is non-existent, how much money would those scientists get then?
Exactly.
Stop deluding yourself, scientists feel financial pressure too, and pretending it doesn't exist does no one any good at all.
"You are on a site that is dedicated to science, so the people HERE understand that research grants provide relatively LOW SALARIES."
O Rly?
It seems that those "people" need to check their facts then, because they're dead wrong. Research Scientists have an average salary in the US of 83,0000. That is over twice what Teachers make, nearly twice what police officers make, and more than software engineers, physicians, and attorneys.
So when you say "relatively LOW SALARIES." what are you "relating" them to, professional athletes and CEOs? I had a hard time finding ANY occupation that, on average, got paid as much as research scientists (be glad you're a dentist if you are, ka-ching!).
"People who want to dedicate themselves to science and helping society go to work for universities and you are trying to smear these people by saying they are in it for the MONEY?"
No, Mr. Strawman, what we're saying is that without money to pay for the research, research doesn't get done. Pretending that they are above the inevitable corruption that follows money is naive in the extreme.
You're advocating "security through obscurity" for scientific data?
Really?
Because you think the downside of allowing the data to be easily available is worse that making sure it's accurate through peer review?
And that makes sense to you?
What kind of reasoning must one engage in to believe the idea that widespread peer review is not desirable because some nutters will misuse the data? THEY DO THAT ANYWAY.
Meanwhile, situations like this occur because the data is not easily available for review.
I simply don't understand how anything you said makes sense, or is in any way insightful.
"The DOJ interpreted the "knowingly" element of the HIPAA statute for criminal liability as requiring only knowledge of the actions that constitute an offense. Specific knowledge of an action being in violation of the HIPAA statute is not required."
That means that you are in violation if you were aware that someone else did something, but not that it was a violation.
By the way, violations were interpreted by our compliance officer in some very strange ways, one of which had the effect of disallowing the IT department to work on computers that held client data.
"Back in the 1990's, I used to pay $23 a month for phone service and $36 for cable. Now I pay a combined total for cable, phone and internet of $160 per month. That is way above inflation."
My bill is around 100-110 a month. In the 90's It was around 60-70 just for cable channels, no internet access.
My bill now reflects a different set of services and channels from my 90's package. Broadband wasn't even available in my area until 97, so comparing the two is useless.
"If they do not think I am a criminal, why should they follow me?"
Is that what they're doing? I thought they were taking a photograph of people who choose to engage in a very specific activity in a very specific public place. That doesn't in any way resemble "following you" so why go straight to hyperbole?
If you're argument is so strong, why resort to mangling of the facts to make it?
You see, the problem with repeatedly having these discussions is that inevitably we have to wade through posts like yours that confuse and distort the issues rather than try to accurately discuss the real issues.
Be concerned about you privacy. Don't expect us to play along when you choose to overstate your argument because you can't make it any other way.
"But between you and I, I'd quit now; each post makes you look more and more ridiculous."
BWAHAHAHAHA. This from a guy who tried to claim Al Bore was charming.
"And remember, boy genius, when you become too boring, I'll just move on."
I know that's a lie, you're still hugging Al Bore's nuts like they were a life preserver and you were on the Titanic (I beleive that's what they call his campaign these days, interesting coincidence).
I win again. And will continue to. How can an Al Gore fanboi like you really hope to compete?
Slashdot Mirror
"You lied I caught you.
And now you're trying to avoid admitting it."
"Eight."
In other words, you know I'm right and proving you're smart enough to count with your shoes on is all you have left.
Thanks for admitting it.
"As noted above, neither."
Restating your lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.
You lied I caught you.
And now you're trying to avoid admitting it.
"You called me a hypocrite"
And you also said I didn't earlier.
Which one of those statements was a lie?
Need me to quote them again for you liar?
"Because, you didn't literally say that"
So are you lying now, or were you lying before?
"You are, as you're poorly attempting to use "retarded 5-year-old logic" to argue that "Your views are hypocritical" isn't equivalent to explicitly saying "You are a hypocrite"."
It's not, you're just not smart enough to understand the difference I guess.
And that's funny liar, if that's true, then why did YOU say I didn't call YOU a hypocrite?
Were you lying then or now?
You lost liar, and your desperation right now proves you know it.
First you said
""Ok, you never called me a hypocrite"
Then you said IN YOUR VERY NEXT POST
"You called me a hypocrite"
Which one is the lie liar? How do you say two completely opposite things, then have the balls to call ME names when I have evidence in black and white that you're lying?
"You called me a hypocrite"
Then why did you say I didn't liar?
How fucking messed up are you?
"Which is provably irrelevant"
In other words, you can't refute it, so it's irrelevant. Again, exactly what I expected from a liar like you.
"Arguing with you is like arguing with a retarded 5-year-old."
And arguing with you is like arguing with a liar. No, actually, it IS arguing with a liar.
Go ahead and claim otherwise, while everyone can read the quotes that prove it.
"I gave links and evidence. You gave nothing but a statement which my evidence makes clear is quite wrong.
Care to back your statement up with more than, well, than not a god damn thing like you currently have?"
Support your statements like I did or fuck off.
"What we are discussing is the accusation that the tens of thousands of scientists who are trying to alert the public to the global warming problem are part of some huge hoax, intended to get money for themselves."
No, we're not. I don't give a fuck what you thought YOU were discussing, but that was not what I was discussing, and YOU responded to ME.
Also, that was never the accusation, that's a stupid childish straw man that you concocted because reality is irrefutable. I never claimed that ANYWHERE, so don't argue it with me.
"Ok, you never called me a hypocrite, you merely called my viewpoints hypocritical."
This is the kind of accuracy that is present in your though process. It shows in your posts.
"In other words, your point is trivially disproven but you don't want to admit it and refuse to even consider the possibility that your point is stupid."
No cunt, in other words, I made a very clear point, you did nothing but run off at the mouth and avoid it, and I don't give a fuck what you think because, as you already admitted, you aren't reading what I say, you're reading what you think and making it into what I say.
You didn't refute a single thing I said, you just spouted off and were wrong. Why would I give a fuck what you think when you make false accusations because you're reading comprehension sucks?
I gave links and facts. You gave nothing, but keep saying you've done something to refute me.
It's that kind of reasoning that made you think I called you a hypocrite, and you were wrong about that too.
Get back to me when your reading comprehension improves.
On second thought, don't.
"Yes, $83,000 is a low salary for someone with a doctorate. Researchers get low salaries."
It's more that physicians (MD) or Attorneys (JD) both of whom have a doctorate They get more than psychologists with PsyD's, and Principals with EdD's. The site I linked to says they're not low, RELATIVELY which was the original claim.
Just saying "Researchers get low salaries" without evidence (which I provided and you did not) is pointless.
I gave links and evidence. You gave nothing but a statement which my evidence makes clear is quite wrong.
Care to back your statement up with more than, well, than not a god damn thing like you currently have?
You're wrong.
"People bend their ethics in the presence of money. Your pet scientists do it too. That was my only point, and frankly, it's dead nuts irrefutable.
Stop wasting your time trying."
So you're trying to claim scientists don't get corrupted by money? Right, STFU with that, no one's buying.
And then, please quote where I called YOU a hypocrite. If you can't, then retract your claim that I did so.
As to your points, I don't give a fuck about them. They don't matter to my point, and I really don't care to hear your ideas on the subject.
"No, he said RELATIVELY low salaries"
And I related them to other jobs and they were STILL HIGH.
"and said that this was respect to corporate research scientists"
After I showed him he was wrong, because his original point was garbage.
And now you're wrong too.
"The point, you will recall, is that climate scientists aren't in it for the money: "
No, the point I was addressing was that the salaries were low, which is a lie.
Neither you nor he have done anything to refute that, because you can't, because they're not.
This make three times you've chimed in and been completely wrong.
"The reality of scientific funding has nothing to do with the fantasy wherein scientists get together in smoke-filled back rooms and privately decide what conclusions they're going to reach before they apply for grants."
And no one anywhere claimed as much. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of hyperbole speaks to the strength of your point.
"There is nothing hypocritical about what I said."
The time honored refrain of the hypocrite. "Nuh-uhhhh...Nu-uhhh..."
"Unlike, say, the NSF, oil companies do fund studies which reach pre-determined conclusions"
And some don't. Pretending that studies that diagree with your viewpoint are poisoned because of it is moronic. Judge each study on its individual merits, unless you're not interested in science but ideology.
People bend their ethics in the presence of money. Your pet scientists do it too. That was my only point, and frankly, it's dead nuts irrefutable.
Stop wasting your time trying.
It never ceases to amaze me how hard you people try to rationalize your viewpoints, no matter how ridiculous and hypocritical you look in the process.
Like you did right there.
"Okay wiseguy..."
I stopped reading right there.
If you'd like to try without being a cunt right off the bat, then let's. Otherwise fuck off.
"Well thanks for making my point."
... are you paid, or a dupe?"
If your point was that you were completely wrong, then yes.
You said they get paid LOW SALARIES" and I showed you were wrong.
Why be a dick about it when you get proven wrong?
"My question, what kind of person tries to obfuscate the facts about global warming by trying to smear the researchers, saying they are only in it for the money?"
No one did that, what kind of liar relies on straw men like you just did when they can't refute my point?
"So
So, is your point so weak that you result to slandering people when it gets crushed like I just did to it?
"I was not at all advocating that"
Yes you were and I obviously read your fucking comments you stupid twit, how else did I go through and respond to each individual point.
"Now, go take your meds and learn a little reading comprehension."
Well, if you were planning on coming across as a rational well adjusted person, then this really cemented it.
You said something colossally moronic and I called you on it. Don't be a cunt just because I caught you.
"On the other hand you have dedicated scientists getting research grants to study the problem."
t ml= & l1=
And if the problem were not as bad as we thought, or is non-existent, how much money would those scientists get then?
Exactly.
Stop deluding yourself, scientists feel financial pressure too, and pretending it doesn't exist does no one any good at all.
"You are on a site that is dedicated to science, so the people HERE understand that research grants provide relatively LOW SALARIES."
O Rly?
It seems that those "people" need to check their facts then, because they're dead wrong. Research Scientists have an average salary in the US of 83,0000. That is over twice what Teachers make, nearly twice what police officers make, and more than software engineers, physicians, and attorneys.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Research-Scientist.h
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Police+Officer&l1
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Teacher&l1=
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Software+Engineer
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Physician&l1=
So when you say "relatively LOW SALARIES." what are you "relating" them to, professional athletes and CEOs? I had a hard time finding ANY occupation that, on average, got paid as much as research scientists (be glad you're a dentist if you are, ka-ching!).
"People who want to dedicate themselves to science and helping society go to work for universities and you are trying to smear these people by saying they are in it for the MONEY?"
No, Mr. Strawman, what we're saying is that without money to pay for the research, research doesn't get done. Pretending that they are above the inevitable corruption that follows money is naive in the extreme.
You're advocating "security through obscurity" for scientific data?
Really?
Because you think the downside of allowing the data to be easily available is worse that making sure it's accurate through peer review?
And that makes sense to you?
What kind of reasoning must one engage in to believe the idea that widespread peer review is not desirable because some nutters will misuse the data? THEY DO THAT ANYWAY.
Meanwhile, situations like this occur because the data is not easily available for review.
I simply don't understand how anything you said makes sense, or is in any way insightful.
"The DOJ interpreted the "knowingly" element of the HIPAA statute for criminal liability as requiring only knowledge of the actions that constitute an offense. Specific knowledge of an action being in violation of the HIPAA statute is not required."
That means that you are in violation if you were aware that someone else did something, but not that it was a violation.
By the way, violations were interpreted by our compliance officer in some very strange ways, one of which had the effect of disallowing the IT department to work on computers that held client data.
"Back in the 1990's, I used to pay $23 a month for phone service and $36 for cable. Now I pay a combined total for cable, phone and internet of $160 per month. That is way above inflation."
My bill is around 100-110 a month. In the 90's It was around 60-70 just for cable channels, no internet access.
My bill now reflects a different set of services and channels from my 90's package. Broadband wasn't even available in my area until 97, so comparing the two is useless.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
"What do we tell those people now that their beloved Triclosan is known to just screw things up further?"
To get some therapy and straighten their heads out?
Why indulge an inappropriate behavior that serves no practical purpose and me actually be harmful?
"Your son happens to surpass the speed limit & the officer promptly issues a speeding ticket ... and another ... and another."
So, you're trying to claim that enforcing the law your son broke is an abuse?
"If they do not think I am a criminal, why should they follow me?"
Is that what they're doing? I thought they were taking a photograph of people who choose to engage in a very specific activity in a very specific public place. That doesn't in any way resemble "following you" so why go straight to hyperbole?
If you're argument is so strong, why resort to mangling of the facts to make it?
You see, the problem with repeatedly having these discussions is that inevitably we have to wade through posts like yours that confuse and distort the issues rather than try to accurately discuss the real issues.
Be concerned about you privacy. Don't expect us to play along when you choose to overstate your argument because you can't make it any other way.
"Your half-wit insults don't prompt me to write; it's simply the fun of toying with someone as clueless as you. "
Funny that, seeing as how my entire point was to get you to respond.
How does it feel to be my puppet, Mr. Hugger-of-nuts?
How does it feel to know you've done exactly what I want the whole time, and continue to without realizing it?
DANCE PUPPET!
I own you. Go ahead and respond with why you think I don't, exactly like I knew you would.
"But between you and I, I'd quit now; each post makes you look more and more ridiculous."
BWAHAHAHAHA. This from a guy who tried to claim Al Bore was charming.
"And remember, boy genius, when you become too boring, I'll just move on."
I know that's a lie, you're still hugging Al Bore's nuts like they were a life preserver and you were on the Titanic (I beleive that's what they call his campaign these days, interesting coincidence).
I win again. And will continue to. How can an Al Gore fanboi like you really hope to compete?