Discussion:
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-23 17:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23

Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.

Lynn
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-23 18:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"

Oh. I see.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Kevrob
2019-10-23 20:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
I like that Arlo geeks out about science. Janis, too!

https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/07/15?comments=visible#comments

Here, Arlo engages in some counterfactual speculation....

https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/13

.... as one does.

Kevin R
p***@hotmail.com
2019-10-24 05:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
That poem is a real gold mine of story titles; I recognized:

World Enough and Time

Vaster than Empires and More Slow

A Fine and Private Place

Any others?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Juho Julkunen
2019-10-24 14:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
World Enough and Time
Vaster than Empires and More Slow
A Fine and Private Place
Any others?
Nothing further immediately springs to mind.

But Mr. Poe takes exception to "none, I think, do there embrace."
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-24 16:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
World Enough and Time
Vaster than Empires and More Slow
A Fine and Private Place
Any others?
Nothing further immediately springs to mind.
But Mr. Poe takes exception to "none, I think, do there embrace."
Also John Donne:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44124/the-relic
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-24 15:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
World Enough and Time
Vaster than Empires and More Slow
A Fine and Private Place
None other comes to mind atm, but I haven't read a lot of SFF
published in the last ten years.

On the other hand, there's MacLeish's "You, Andrew Marvell,"
reflecting the lines "But at my back I always hear/Time's winged
chariot hurrying near,"

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43003/you-andrew-marvell

which has itself generated at least one title, _And Strange at
Ecbatan the trees,_ which I've heard of but haven't read. Any
others from that one?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
William Hyde
2019-10-24 18:52:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
"Just a line?"
Oh. I see.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44688/to-his-coy-mistress
World Enough and Time
Vaster than Empires and More Slow
A Fine and Private Place
Any others?
I've been waiting for "The Iron Gates of Life".

If I were able - and not so lazy - I'd write a novel just to use that title.

Lucky for all of us I am not the former, but the later.

William Hyde
Carl Fink
2019-10-24 01:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-24 02:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
Asteroids or Climate Change ?

Assuming that you are asking about Climate Change, here you go:
"Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/

Lynn
Carl Fink
2019-10-24 12:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Juho Julkunen
2019-10-24 14:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@panix5.panix.com>, ***@panix.com
says...
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
Asteroids or Climate Change ?
"Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary � greatly"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/
So you choose to cite known liar Anthony Watts' publication?
Are you a parody account?
By this point, he effectively is.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2019-10-24 23:55:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
Asteroids or Climate Change ?
"Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/
So you choose to cite known liar Anthony Watts' publication?
You would be more convincing if you identified and refuted the lie in
the link than you are simply asserting that the site owner is "a known
liar".
Titus G
2019-10-25 06:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:59:18 +0000 (UTC), Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth.
Climate Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you
are saying that based on something other than the real world?
Asteroids or Climate Change ?
"Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary
– greatly" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/
So you choose to cite known liar Anthony Watts' publication?
You would be more convincing if you identified and refuted the lie
in the link than you are simply asserting that the site owner is "a
known liar".
The WhatsUpWithThat 'science' magazine is known for finding convincing
but not conclusive scientific evidence of alien life (in meteors from
Mars for example) so their opinion on Climate Change is likely to be as
scientific. I don't know about the "known liar". The implication is that
Watts lacks integrity and publishes nonsense because it is his
livelihood, an implication shared with Lynn.
Alan Baker
2019-10-24 16:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
     https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth.  Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
Asteroids or Climate Change ?
"Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly"
   https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/
Lynn
Digging back a little far there, aren't you?
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-10-24 02:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
h***@gmail.com
2019-10-24 04:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
On behalf of reality: could you at least acknowledge that you are saying
that based on something other than the real world?
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Considering that Lynn has been posting climate change denial for years I don't see any reason to think he's referring to comic than expressing his beliefs about the real world.
Carl Fink
2019-10-24 13:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
Chris Buckley
2019-10-24 14:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.

Chris
Paul S Person
2019-10-24 16:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
And, anyway, kill filters exist to handle people a person doesn't want
to ever read posts from again.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2019-10-24 16:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 01:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 03:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?

Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?

Do I need to go on?
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 03:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.

It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 06:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.

You'd respond negatively...

...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 12:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.

You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 16:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.

Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.

You want to take that away from me.
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.
Nope. I never once attempted to shut down his speech.

I gave him exactly what he gave this group...
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 20:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.

I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 21:43:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech, so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-25 22:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech,
And spanking, don't forget.
Post by Alan Baker
so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 23:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech,
And spanking, don't forget.
How could I ever...

;-)
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-26 08:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech,
And spanking, don't forget.
<snip again>

Don't tell me you haven't heard of being positively pwned [wow--it's not
tripping the spellcheck anymore!] in an online conversation referred to
as "being spanked"?

It was perfectly obvious to at least me that Alan wasn't literally
threatening to fly down to Intercontinental Airport, track down Lynn's
house outside Houston and turn him over Alan's knee.

Though it _is_ an amusing and perhaps somewhat appealing image now that
I've actually spelled it out :-P
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Chrysi Cat
2019-10-26 08:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snip>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech,
And spanking, don't forget.
<snip again>
Don't tell me you haven't heard of being positively pwned [wow--it's not
tripping the spellcheck anymore!] in an online conversation referred to
as "being spanked"?
It was perfectly obvious to at least me that Alan wasn't literally
threatening to fly down to Intercontinental Airport, track down Lynn's
house outside Houston and turn him over Alan's knee.
Though it _is_ an amusing and perhaps somewhat appealing image now that
I've actually spelled it out :-P
And holy misattribution, Batman! I forgot that it was Carl who
originally promised spankings.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
threatening to fly down to Intercontinental Airport, track down Lynn's
house outside Houston and turn him over Alan's knee.
... ADD TO CART
Post by Chrysi Cat
Though it _is_ an amusing and perhaps somewhat appealing image now that
I've actually spelled it out :-P
Dave, pay-per-view is indeed indicated
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-26 00:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech, so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Yes. I'm not at all saying that Carl should be prevented from saying it,
but I am saying that trying to keep someone from speaking is wrong. You
evidently disagree.

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-26 00:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech, so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Yes. I'm not at all saying that Carl should be prevented from saying it,
but I am saying that trying to keep someone from speaking is wrong. You
evidently disagree.
Nope.

You haven't a clue.

You declare that offering to "spank" someone with speech for what they
have said is "trying to keep someone from speaking".

It is not.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-26 03:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
No one said Lynn should not be speaking.
Threats to speak unkindly to people are the very sort of thing you SAY
is free speech.
Post by Chris Buckley
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Nope. I just my reserve my right to call them on their opinions.
How strange! The "rule" of mine that you so vociferously object to is
"Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong."
I'm afraid I can't resolve your contradictory statements.
I fully support being able to call them on their opinions, and said so above.
The only "threat" to stop someone from speaking was speech, so you are
saying that that speech is wrong.
Yes. I'm not at all saying that Carl should be prevented from saying it,
but I am saying that trying to keep someone from speaking is wrong. You
evidently disagree.
Nope.
You haven't a clue.
Since you don't seem to want to respond to me when I use statements, I
will ask you my question directly: You vociferously objected to my
rule that "Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong." Why?
Post by Alan Baker
You declare that offering to "spank" someone with speech for what they
have said is "trying to keep someone from speaking".
No, I regard it as attempted intimidation to get Lynn to "withdraw from the
conversation" (the earlier part of Carl's line).

Chris
Paul S Person
2019-10-25 17:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.
Actually, in the cases cited, ignoring them is far more effective.

Free speech does /not/ include the right to have anyone listen to you.

Ignoring people is /not/ suppression.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 18:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.
Actually, in the cases cited, ignoring them is far more effective.
Free speech does /not/ include the right to have anyone listen to you.
Ignoring people is /not/ suppression.
I love the irony when someone tells me what I'm speaking is somehow
infringing someone else's right to free speech...

...so I have to stop!

:-D
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 20:18:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.
Actually, in the cases cited, ignoring them is far more effective.
Free speech does /not/ include the right to have anyone listen to you.
Ignoring people is /not/ suppression.
I agree completely!

Chris
William Hyde
2019-10-25 19:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
Bullshit.
You'd respond negatively...
...AND YOU KNOW IT.
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
You're the one that wants to deny people the right to even
express their opinion.
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
I have never EVER gone to any lengths to shut down anyone's speech.
GUCS. And unfortunately you apparently succeeded and this group is much
poorer because of it.
You think Alan Baker drove away Terry? You don't know Terry.

Or even No. 33 Secretary.

William Hyde
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:34:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Very possibly, but I never said I wouldn't. What I would not say is
that they should not be speaking or that they should withdraw their
speech or that they would get spanked if they continued speaking.
Threats to stop people from speaking are wrong. Discussions of why
particular speech is incorrect are perfectly fine.
... So you are saying here that people who are following your rules of
civilized discussion are forbidden from expressing certain opinions about other
folks' speech.

Got it.

Dave, carry on, and remember karma's a bitch

ps: I notice this is crossposted, and thus may be reaching people who are not
used to others replying to their points with calmness and logic. I'll cope.

pps: no, of COURSE I'm not saying r.a.sf.w is full of such others. Just that
some exist here.

ppps: and also Star(sh)aker, of course.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 06:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
My previous response wasn't sufficiently explicit:

You are a liar when you say I have "gone to great lengths".
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-25 08:32:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
I don't vouch for Alan, but I believe Carl really was
threatening to take the time to explain exactly where
and why what Lynn has been saying is wrong.
Reluctantly and unkindly.

Then again, Carl actually said he would spank him, so
maybe literally that. If it's what they're into...
Which means Lynn's argument actually counts as foreplay.

Does nothing for me, though.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 13:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
I don't vouch for Alan, but I believe Carl really was
threatening to take the time to explain exactly where
and why what Lynn has been saying is wrong.
Reluctantly and unkindly.
Even in your favorable-to-Carl interpretation, don't you believe
that Carl was attempting to shut down future speech from Lynn ("withdraw
from the conversation") via insults and intimidation rather than
discussion?

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 16:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
I don't vouch for Alan, but I believe Carl really was
threatening to take the time to explain exactly where
and why what Lynn has been saying is wrong.
Reluctantly and unkindly.
Even in your favorable-to-Carl interpretation, don't you believe
that Carl was attempting to shut down future speech from Lynn ("withdraw
from the conversation") via insults and intimidation rather than
discussion?
He was attempting to use speech to counter Lynn's speech...

...something you say you defend in all cases.
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-25 22:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
I don't vouch for Alan, but I believe Carl really was
threatening to take the time to explain exactly where
and why what Lynn has been saying is wrong.
Reluctantly and unkindly.
Even in your favorable-to-Carl interpretation, don't you believe
that Carl was attempting to shut down future speech from Lynn ("withdraw
from the conversation") via insults and intimidation rather than
discussion?
No. Discussion was done previously.

And I don't think Lynn expects his preaching here against
climate change science to be taken seriously by anybody.
So I think his purpose is only to annoy. Death of
Terry Austin be damned, Lynn /is/ Terry. And maybe
always was.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-25 23:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
I don't vouch for Alan, but I believe Carl really was
threatening to take the time to explain exactly where
and why what Lynn has been saying is wrong.
Reluctantly and unkindly.
Even in your favorable-to-Carl interpretation, don't you believe
that Carl was attempting to shut down future speech from Lynn ("withdraw
from the conversation") via insults and intimidation rather than
discussion?
No. Discussion was done previously.
And I don't think Lynn expects his preaching here against
climate change science to be taken seriously by anybody.
So I think his purpose is only to annoy. Death of
Terry Austin be damned, Lynn /is/ Terry. And maybe
always was.
Sadly, my short campaign to get GUCS to come out of the shadows was a
failure. I thought it was a long shot and so it was. Maybe some day he
will come back.

And no, I am not Terry. We are radically different personalities. And
I live in Texas, Terry lives in California.

Lynn
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
So I think his purpose is only to annoy.
"... because he knows it teases!"

Dave, wow wow wow, back on topic for the group
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-25 20:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far. People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down. Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
This is why I have Alan Baker blocked. Life is just too short.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 21:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above.  I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement.  Denying people the right to politely express their
opinion
is wrong.
Chris
If you gave that just a couple of minutes thought, you'd perhaps be able
to imagine a few hundred exceptions to your "rule"...
Nope, as long as I'm free to ignore their speech. Perhaps you could
list them for me?
If someone were to with every bit of civility they could muster proposed
politely that some humans weren't really human based on the colour of
their skin?
Or to ever so civilly declare that women were the rightful chattel of men?
Do I need to go on?
You're at 0 so far.  People are free to say reprehensible things.
It's very clear that you don't believe in free speech. You've gone to
great lengths in this group to shut down other people's speech, taking
over conversations just to shut them down.  Sorry, I will never agree
with you - but I won't attempt to stop you from posting.
Chris
This is why I have Alan Baker blocked.  Life is just too short.
Well... ...there's moral cowardice there, too.

:-)
Carl Fink
2019-10-24 17:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
J. Clarke
2019-10-24 23:57:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
But the only argument you have presented is "this is contrafactual
nonsense". To be effective, you need to show what is "contrafactual"
about it.
Carl Fink
2019-10-25 16:13:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
But the only argument you have presented is "this is contrafactual
nonsense". To be effective, you need to show what is "contrafactual"
about it.
I may be overestimating the basic scientific and general literacy of my
correspondents.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
Paul S Person
2019-10-25 17:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
But the only argument you have presented is "this is contrafactual
nonsense". To be effective, you need to show what is "contrafactual"
about it.
I may be overestimating the basic scientific and general literacy of my
correspondents.
Or failing to distinguish between science and ideology.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 19:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
But the only argument you have presented is "this is contrafactual
nonsense". To be effective, you need to show what is "contrafactual"
about it.
I may be overestimating the basic scientific and general literacy of my
correspondents.
Hmmm. My qualifications:
PhD Computer Science, Cornell
Author of 100+ research papers, including in journals like _CACM_ and _Science_
Been cited more than 20,000 times in research papers by other authors
Reviewed countless (many hundreds) research papers, serving as conference
reviewer, journal reviewer, senior reviewer, program chair
Served on multiple NSF funding panels, evaluating proposed grants

I await with great curiosity your list of qualifications for
evaluating scientific arguments.

Chris
J. Clarke
2019-10-25 23:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
But the only argument you have presented is "this is contrafactual
nonsense". To be effective, you need to show what is "contrafactual"
about it.
I may be overestimating the basic scientific and general literacy of my
correspondents.
In other words you have no actual argument to present.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-26 02:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
...
Post by Carl Fink
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
Carl,

Now that Lynn has neither withdrawn his claim or withdrawn from the
conversation, I hereby challenge you to validly prove that Lynn's
statement (that asteroids are a bigger danger than climate change) is
contrafactual nonsense.

If you can, I will profoundly apologize to you. Then I will do my best to
popularize your proof to the world because it will save many lives
and time of folks. But you can't do it. Nobody can. The science does not
exist to do it, nor does the social analysis or economic analysis.

Note that I personally believe Lynn is probably wrong. As I've stated
in this group several times in the past, I've been a believer in human
caused global warming for decades, though I don't regard it as
proven. But even given human caused global warming, Lynn could still
be correct. There are very real human costs in slowing down global
warming, for example in 3rd world countries that can't advance their
standard of living and life expectancy as quickly if energy is not as
cheap. The global turmoil caused by China reducing their carbon
footprint to that of 10 years ago would be very large (large enough to
be render the effort completely impractical). The trade-offs involved
in the human cost of global warming versus the human cost of the
various proposals to reduce global warming are enormous and have only
begun to be analyzed. We don't yet know how much the reduction proposals cost,
and we don't yet know how much they will save.

I regard discussion of these trade-offs as vitally important for
today's society. But you can't have those discussions if you don't allow
the speech of those who don't agree with you. Carl, that's why I regard your
attempts to shut down Lynn as "dangerous".

Chris
Chris Buckley
2019-10-25 01:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?

Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.

I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)

Chris
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 03:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
How is it NOT free speech by the very rule you propose?

Lynn can apparently say whatever he wants...

...but to say something against him because of it...

...that would be free speech too, by your ruling, wouldn't it?
Post by Chris Buckley
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Chris
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-25 06:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement. Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Lynn's own posts stating that he will never believe any evidence of
climate change is legitimate because it would mean a loss of income for
him if it was.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-25 20:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above.  I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement.  Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense.  That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Lynn's own posts stating that he will never believe any evidence of
climate change is legitimate because it would mean a loss of income for
him if it was.
Sure, that is part of it. Although, to say never is quite extreme.

But, the USA is built on cheap energy. And cheap hydrocarbons. Look at
all of the new ethylene plants being built along the Gulf Coast. To
change this without being 100% sure is to just ask for a financial
disaster in the USA. Of course, some people just want to burn down the USA.

And please don't tell me that Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXX Climate Disruption being caused by mankind is a 100%
sure thing.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 21:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above.  I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are. I disagree with a lot
of what Lynn says but I disagree far more strongly with your
statement.  Denying people the right to politely express their opinion
is wrong.
He may do so. If it's absurd contrafactual nonsense I will point that out.
Implying that this is somehow anti-free speech is contrafactual nonsense.
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense.  That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Lynn's own posts stating that he will never believe any evidence of
climate change is legitimate because it would mean a loss of income
for him if it was.
Sure, that is part of it.  Although, to say never is quite extreme.
But, the USA is built on cheap energy.  And cheap hydrocarbons.  Look at
all of the new ethylene plants being built along the Gulf Coast.  To
change this without being 100% sure is to just ask for a financial
disaster in the USA.  Of course, some people just want to burn down the
USA.
And please don't tell me that Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXX Climate Disruption being caused by mankind is a 100%
sure thing.
Lynn
It's as close to sure thing as anything of consequence can be at this
point...
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
But, the USA is built on cheap energy. And cheap hydrocarbons. Look at
all of the new ethylene plants being built along the Gulf Coast. To
change this without being 100% sure is to just ask for a financial
disaster in the USA. Of course, some people just want to burn down the USA.
I seem to recall you had to move fairly recently because your old house turned
out to be in a flood plain that got used every once in a while, and more so
recently with all the extra energy being shoved into the atmosphere and weather
systems.

So, did you buy the previous house without being 100% sure it would never get
caught in a flood disaster, causing you to under go a small financial disaster?
Post by Lynn McGuire
And please don't tell me that Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXX Climate Disruption being caused by mankind is a 100%
sure thing.
Nothing in science is "sure". You can get that in math. And you're an engineer,
not a scientist, and specifically not a climate scientist, so you're not
qualified to say that there are models with better fits to the available data
that are somehow being ignored or suppressed.

Our best understanding is that it's MOST certainly human-activity-caused. We
have no clue abut ANYTHING else that could have caused such upticks, at such
an accelerating rate, without accompanying signs that (for example) the Sun's
solar constant had started increasing, or volcanoes had suddenly become much
more common, or the Solar System had moved into an implausibly-shaped zone of
reflective dust, etc.

You don't have another model. You just have serious financial motives for
claiming that this model can't possibly be right. Adding bad axioms to your
reasoning makes you end up like (for another example) creation-'science' folks;
_given_ that the Bible is inerrant and that (a derived axiom) the Universe
was created around 6,023 years ago, of COURSE evolution is a sham and a fraud.
Because there hasn't been enough TIME. Ditto plate tectonics, just about all of
astrophysics, and much of particle physics... because the observed results
disagree seriously with the bad axioms. So they have to squirm violently to
get quasi-reasoning that explains the observations...

Dave, it's painful to watch, but they're doing as well as they can given the
rotten apples they ate off the Tree of Knowledge
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Carl Fink
2019-10-25 16:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Pointing out nonsense is abuse? You are too sensitive for Usenet. Or maybe
you just didn't read carefully.
Post by Chris Buckley
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
He has, in fact, been quite polite. You're way too overheated for a
non-party, but he has been quite calm.
Post by Chris Buckley
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Again, I made the generous assumption that you knew basic facts.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 16:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Pointing out nonsense is abuse? You are too sensitive for Usenet. Or maybe
you just didn't read carefully.
Mr. Buckley thinks that "free speech" means any speech HE PERSONALLY
thinks is in bounds.
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
He has, in fact, been quite polite. You're way too overheated for a
non-party, but he has been quite calm.
Post by Chris Buckley
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Again, I made the generous assumption that you knew basic facts.
J. Clarke
2019-10-25 23:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Chris Buckley
No, you did not just "point that out". You said that Lynn shouldn't post or
you would abuse him. How is that possibly not "anti-free speech"?
Pointing out nonsense is abuse? You are too sensitive for Usenet. Or maybe
you just didn't read carefully.
Post by Chris Buckley
Sorry, from my perspective, the only reason you posted was to shut Lynn up.
He's responded with remarkable politeness to all the abuse he's gotten
from the intolerant crowd, IMO.
He has, in fact, been quite polite. You're way too overheated for a
non-party, but he has been quite calm.
Post by Chris Buckley
I enthusiastically applaud posters like William Hyde who are willing
to spend the time (at least occasionally) to offer reasoned argument
about why posts are nonsense. That's the method to convince somebody
not to post contrafactual nonsense, not your method of threats. (Note that
I have seen no evidence that Lynn's position is "contra-factual" - what
fact can you prove that it contradicts?)
Again, I made the generous assumption that you knew basic facts.
What "basic facts" are these?
Mark Jackson
2019-10-25 18:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a Global
Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of work, which
was funded so it could be not only full time but assisted, for a Phd in
physics to accumulate enough background to become convinced that the
climate scientists had been right all along. This is not a level of
investment available in the ordinary run of things. The practical
question is how to pick experts to trust. I don't have a quick answer to
that, other than to reject anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog

Signature below from March 2019.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
The following five words are the best tip-off that
you’re about to encounter an invalid citation:
'According to the Heritage Foundation...'
- Jonathan Chait
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-25 21:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a Global
Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of work, which
was funded so it could be not only full time but assisted, for a Phd in
physics to accumulate enough background to become convinced that the
climate scientists had been right all along. This is not a level of
investment available in the ordinary run of things. The practical
question is how to pick experts to trust. I don't have a quick answer to
that, other than to reject anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Signature below from March 2019.
Got URL ?

Lynn
Mark Jackson
2019-10-25 22:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
My father taught me that a job worth doing is worth doing right.
It is mind-boggling the number of jobs not worth doing and the
incalculable hours I’ve saved by not doing them.
- Jimmy Johnson
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-25 23:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude ! You cut me to the quick.

"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not have
the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material. I almost always
provide the URL when I note something of interest.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 23:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude !  You cut me to the quick.
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not have
the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material.  I almost always
provide the URL when I note something of interest.
Congratulations!

You're now posting links to things that completely disagree with your
stated position.

Tell the truth: you just read the title and ASSUMED it mean it hed been
converted TO being skeptical about climate change.

:-)

'CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research
effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was
real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-26 00:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude !  You cut me to the quick.
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not
have the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material.  I almost
always provide the URL when I note something of interest.
Congratulations!
You're now posting links to things that completely disagree with your
stated position.
Tell the truth: you just read the title and ASSUMED it mean it hed been
converted TO being skeptical about climate change.
:-)
'CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research
effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was
real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'
Hi Alan,

Nope, I read the article. Mark suggested that I read the article and I
did. Did not change my mind though.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-26 00:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude !  You cut me to the quick.
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not
have the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material.  I almost
always provide the URL when I note something of interest.
Congratulations!
You're now posting links to things that completely disagree with your
stated position.
Tell the truth: you just read the title and ASSUMED it mean it hed
been converted TO being skeptical about climate change.
:-)
'CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause.'
Hi Alan,
Nope, I read the article.  Mark suggested that I read the article and I
did.  Did not change my mind though.
Lynn
That would be because you've never spent even a single moment examining
the fact that what you WANT to be true has no relation to what IS true.
J. Clarke
2019-10-26 00:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:05:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude ! You cut me to the quick.
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not have
the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material. I almost always
provide the URL when I note something of interest.
My main takeway is that if one wants to be a physicist and he is an
example of the physics faculty at Berkeley, one should stay far away
from that institution. The basis for this view is his assertion that
he did not believe that global warming was happening. I cannot
imagine anyone with a PhD in any of the hard sciences achieving that
degree without learning even a tiny bit about the climate cycle.

The question, to me, is not whether we are experiencing warming, the
question, to me, is whether it's something we need to do anything
about.
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-26 00:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10/25/2019 7:06 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
...
Post by J. Clarke
The question, to me, is not whether we are experiencing warming, the
question, to me, is whether it's something we need to do anything
about.
We are definitely experiencing a small amount of global warming.
However, much less than the models promote. My first question is it a
little bit man caused or a large amount man caused ?

My second question is the same as yours. The extreme case of 2 C
temperature rise is an average temperature rise from 288 K to 290 K.
That is less than a one percent rise. Humans are incredibly versatile,
we deal with much tougher issues every day. Why would we not just
adjust to any temperature rise ?

My third question is how would we deal with global warming ? The
population of the planet has tripled in the last 60 years. The rising
classes of the third world nations base their rise on significantly
increasing their energy usage. Replacing fossil fuels with the
so-called renewables is not achievable without significant technology
changes. Who is going to reduce their population ? Who is going to cut
their energy footprint ? Wars have started over much less.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-26 00:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by J. Clarke
The question, to me, is not whether we are experiencing warming, the
question, to me, is whether it's something we need to do anything
about.
We are definitely experiencing a small amount of global warming.
However, much less than the models promote.  My first question is it a
little bit man caused or a large amount man caused ?
How do you KNOW it's much less than the models...

...and why use the loaded word "promote".
Post by Lynn McGuire
My second question is the same as yours.  The extreme case of 2 C
temperature rise is an average temperature rise from 288 K to 290 K.
That is less than a one percent rise.  Humans are incredibly versatile,
we deal with much tougher issues every day.  Why would we not just
adjust to any temperature rise ?
How are you going to "adjust" to rising sea levels that flood low-lying
populated areas?
Post by Lynn McGuire
My third question is how would we deal with global warming ?  The
population of the planet has tripled in the last 60 years.  The rising
classes of the third world nations base their rise on significantly
increasing their energy usage.  Replacing fossil fuels with the
so-called renewables is not achievable without significant technology
changes.  Who is going to reduce their population ?  Who is going to cut
their energy footprint ?  Wars have started over much less.
It's so GREAT that you're completely expert on everything.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-26 02:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by J. Clarke
The question, to me, is not whether we are experiencing warming, the
question, to me, is whether it's something we need to do anything
about.
We are definitely experiencing a small amount of global warming.
However, much less than the models promote.  My first question is it a
little bit man caused or a large amount man caused ?
My second question is the same as yours.  The extreme case of 2 C
temperature rise is an average temperature rise from 288 K to 290 K.
That is less than a one percent rise.  Humans are incredibly versatile,
we deal with much tougher issues every day.  Why would we not just
adjust to any temperature rise ?
Its not a matter of us adjusting, its a matter of all the rest of the
life on the planet adjusting.
Post by Lynn McGuire
My third question is how would we deal with global warming ?  The
population of the planet has tripled in the last 60 years.  The rising
classes of the third world nations base their rise on significantly
increasing their energy usage.  Replacing fossil fuels with the
so-called renewables is not achievable without significant technology
changes.  Who is going to reduce their population ?  Who is going to cut
their energy footprint ?  Wars have started over much less.
Many of them will move to the First World countries whose population is
already in decline. Of course their own countries are already past max
population growth themselves.

"Until recently baby production was largely dependent on slave labour;
as soon as women are allowed to answer the question "Would you like to
squeeze as many objects the size of a watermelon out of your body as it
takes to kill you?" they generally answer "No, thank you." This leads to
falling birthrates everywhere women are not kept enslaved and ignorant
of the alternatives." - James Nicoll, 2005
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-26 03:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
Post by J. Clarke
The question, to me, is not whether we are experiencing warming, the
question, to me, is whether it's something we need to do anything
about.
We are definitely experiencing a small amount of global warming.
However, much less than the models promote.  My first question is it a
little bit man caused or a large amount man caused ?
My second question is the same as yours.  The extreme case of 2 C
temperature rise is an average temperature rise from 288 K to 290 K.
That is less than a one percent rise.  Humans are incredibly
versatile, we deal with much tougher issues every day.  Why would we
not just adjust to any temperature rise ?
Its not a matter of us adjusting, its a matter of all the rest of the
life on the planet adjusting.
...

It is the Cold Equations for all of us (all of life) on this space ship
known as the planet Earth. We must all keep adjusting or go away. Life
is not easy, it never was, and never will be. But, you already knew that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-26 03:09:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
My third question is how would we deal with global warming ?  The
population of the planet has tripled in the last 60 years.  The rising
classes of the third world nations base their rise on significantly
increasing their energy usage.  Replacing fossil fuels with the
so-called renewables is not achievable without significant technology
changes.  Who is going to reduce their population ?  Who is going to
cut their energy footprint ?  Wars have started over much less.
Many of them will move to the First World countries whose population is
already in decline.  Of course their own countries are already past max
population growth themselves.
"Until recently baby production was largely dependent on slave labour;
as soon as women are allowed to answer the question "Would you like to
squeeze as many objects the size of a watermelon out of your body as it
takes to kill you?" they generally answer "No, thank you." This leads to
falling birthrates everywhere women are not kept enslaved and ignorant
of the alternatives." - James Nicoll, 2005
You did not answer my question. What is to keep the population of the
space ship known as planet Earth from reaching 10 billion humans by 2050 ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-26 05:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
My third question is how would we deal with global warming ?  The
population of the planet has tripled in the last 60 years.  The
rising classes of the third world nations base their rise on
significantly increasing their energy usage.  Replacing fossil fuels
with the so-called renewables is not achievable without significant
technology changes.  Who is going to reduce their population ?  Who
is going to cut their energy footprint ?  Wars have started over much
less.
Many of them will move to the First World countries whose population
is already in decline.  Of course their own countries are already past
max population growth themselves.
"Until recently baby production was largely dependent on slave labour;
as soon as women are allowed to answer the question "Would you like to
squeeze as many objects the size of a watermelon out of your body as
it takes to kill you?" they generally answer "No, thank you." This
leads to falling birthrates everywhere women are not kept enslaved and
ignorant of the alternatives." - James Nicoll, 2005
You did not answer my question.  What is to keep the population of the
space ship known as planet Earth from reaching 10 billion humans by 2050 ?
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations
Prevent it? Not a damn thing. Is it likely to happen? Given current
trends, probably not.

Now let me turn the question around. What is to keep the population of
Earth from NOT reaching 10 billion by 2050? You can't _PROVE_ what the
population will be in 30 years. Neither of us can, neither can we
predict what technologies or changes may have occurred which will affect
how easily those parts of the world can reach First World living
standards, which is why your question is BS.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Its not a matter of us adjusting, its a matter of all the rest of the
life on the planet adjusting.
Yep. Training amber waves of grain that used to be in a temperate zone so that
they can adjust to being subtropical now, or rejiggering everything that lives
on what used to be permafrost (there's only so far North one CAN migrate, you
know), takes tech levels we don't HAVE.

We can turn the air-conditioning up a little. Our farmlands and cattle ranges
can't.

Dave, also, that's not what "greenhouse Earth" MEANS
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Mark Jackson
2019-10-26 01:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:05:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
My main takeway is that if one wants to be a physicist and he is an
example of the physics faculty at Berkeley, one should stay far away
from that institution. The basis for this view is his assertion that
he did not believe that global warming was happening. I cannot
imagine anyone with a PhD in any of the hard sciences achieving that
degree without learning even a tiny bit about the climate cycle.
Folks with physics PhD's can be remarkably arrogant when operating
outside their field: "Well, this looks simple enough, and it appears
the local 'experts' have gotten it wrong."

I like to think *I'm* not that bad, but I have to cop to some of the
attitude.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
My father taught me that a job worth doing is worth doing right.
It is mind-boggling the number of jobs not worth doing and the
incalculable hours I’ve saved by not doing them.
- Jimmy Johnson
Mark Jackson
2019-10-26 01:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Jackson
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a
Global Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of
work, which was funded so it could be not only full time but
assisted, for a Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to
become convinced that the climate scientists had been right all
along. This is not a level of investment available in the ordinary
run of things. The practical question is how to pick experts to
trust. I don't have a quick answer to that, other than to reject
anyone associated with Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Got URL ?
Sorry - since I'm not 100% sure this would make any difference in your
beliefs I can't be bothered.
Dude !  You cut me to the quick.
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
I just do not understand why people suggest something and then not have
the courtesy to provide the lookup for that material.  I almost always
provide the URL when I note something of interest.
My post was not intended to "suggest" the NYT article (which I had not
read). The quoted blog comment stands by itself.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
My father taught me that a job worth doing is worth doing right.
It is mind-boggling the number of jobs not worth doing and the
incalculable hours I’ve saved by not doing them.
- Jimmy Johnson
Alan Baker
2019-10-25 23:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Mark Jackson
"Consider the case of global warming. Google 'Conversion of a Global
Warming Skeptic'. This is a case where is took 18 months of work,
which was funded so it could be not only full time but assisted, for a
Phd in physics to accumulate enough background to become convinced
that the climate scientists had been right all along. This is not a
level of investment available in the ordinary run of things. The
practical question is how to pick experts to trust. I don't have a
quick answer to that, other than to reject anyone associated with
Republicans."
- insightful comment on economist Brad DeLong's blog
Signature below from March 2019.
Got URL ?
Lynn
You mean other than the one you just presented?

'CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research
effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was
real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.'
David DeLaney
2019-10-27 05:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are.
One is never required to tolerate intolerance, dear. Your right to freedom of
speech, such as it is (and bear in mind that Usenet is most certainly not a
geographical place contained within the borders of the USA, nor are moderators
an arm of the government), stops where it endangers another. Much like your
right to throw punches stops just before you contact someone else's skin.
Post by Chris Buckley
Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong.
Everyone has a right to express an INFORMED opinion. Nobody gets to slather
unfounded FUD topped with bullshit and interleaved with ignorance all over the
eyes of their readers without possibility of disapproving replies.

Dave, Lynn's opinions on this subject are about as uninformed as Shawn Wilson's

ps: yes, I went there. I'm also tired dreadfully of Lynn not understanding what
scientific conclusions are, and of him repeatedly not taking gentle or
moderately sarcastic HINTS that he knows not whereof he talks
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Chris Buckley
2019-10-27 15:37:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
It's remarkable how intolerant some people are.
One is never required to tolerate intolerance, dear.
Such a glib statement. I wonder how we should apply it here?

I consider Lynn to be among the top tolerant active posters in the
group. As I've said, he's remarkably polite; he addresses other
people's opinions rather than attack the people themselves; he does
not call other people liars, or their postings "contrafactual"
nonsense; he does not call them "uninformed"; he does not attempt to
intimidate other people to stop them from posting.

Do you really consider Lynn more intolerant than you, Dave?
Post by David DeLaney
Your right to freedom of
speech, such as it is (and bear in mind that Usenet is most certainly not a
geographical place contained within the borders of the USA, nor are moderators
an arm of the government), stops where it endangers another. Much like your
right to throw punches stops just before you contact someone else's skin.
Post by Chris Buckley
Denying people the right to politely express their opinion is wrong.
Everyone has a right to express an INFORMED opinion. Nobody gets to slather
unfounded FUD topped with bullshit and interleaved with ignorance all over the
eyes of their readers without possibility of disapproving replies.
Dave, Lynn's opinions on this subject are about as uninformed as Shawn Wilson's
ps: yes, I went there. I'm also tired dreadfully of Lynn not understanding what
scientific conclusions are, and of him repeatedly not taking gentle or
moderately sarcastic HINTS that he knows not whereof he talks
Is a fair statement of your position:
Lynn's speech is a danger to society. He must be prevented from
spreading such false propaganda
?

Chris

Joy Beeson
2019-10-24 17:50:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Not one of those actions lies within your power or authority.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Alan Baker
2019-10-24 18:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Carl Fink
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Not one of those actions lies within your power or authority.
Not true.

There are three actions listed there and two of them are Lynn's to do.

But Carl can "spank" Lynn if Lynn doesn't do one of them...

...as much as he wishes.

:-)
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-24 18:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
I'll be hanging around here all week. Flame away !

Lynn
J. Clarke
2019-10-24 23:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Big talk. Do you have the means of enforcing any of those?
Carl Fink
2019-10-25 16:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Big talk. Do you have the means of enforcing any of those?
Did you not bother reading my previous? I offer a choice: stop spreading
dangerous and damaging nonsese, or I will call you on it.

You insist I said something else, but I did not.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!
J. Clarke
2019-10-26 00:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Big talk. Do you have the means of enforcing any of those?
Did you not bother reading my previous? I offer a choice: stop spreading
dangerous and damaging nonsese, or I will call you on it.
You insist I said something else, but I did not.
So you are denying that you said: "He can withdraw it, withdraw from
the conversation, or get spanked"? I do not see "I will call you on
it" as an option there.
Alan Baker
2019-10-26 00:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Big talk. Do you have the means of enforcing any of those?
Did you not bother reading my previous? I offer a choice: stop spreading
dangerous and damaging nonsese, or I will call you on it.
You insist I said something else, but I did not.
So you are denying that you said: "He can withdraw it, withdraw from
the conversation, or get spanked"? I do not see "I will call you on
it" as an option there.
What in the hell do you think "get spanked" can me in this context that
doesn't add up to "I will call you on it"?
Robert Carnegie
2019-10-26 00:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I think, mind you, I say I *think,* he's referring to the comic
linked above. I also think, or rather I hope, that he was being
sarcastic and, lacking any means of expression other than alpha
characters (no vocal intonation, no facial expressions), was
unable to express it.
Lynn is spreading a dangerous and obvious lie. I no longer tolerate that
crap. He can withdraw it, withdraw from the conversation, or get spanked.
Big talk. Do you have the means of enforcing any of those?
Did you not bother reading my previous? I offer a choice: stop spreading
dangerous and damaging nonsese, or I will call you on it.
You insist I said something else, but I did not.
So you are denying that you said: "He can withdraw it, withdraw from
the conversation, or get spanked"? I do not see "I will call you on
it" as an option there.
What in the hell do you think "get spanked" can me in this context that
doesn't add up to "I will call you on it"?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking>,
with illustrations. I thought the word probably
was used figuratively, but Carl might plan to
pay Lynn a visit, if that's who we're discussing.
Joy Beeson
2019-10-26 00:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well, this thread is done. Everyone has said everything he has to say
a minimum of twice, and no communication has taken place.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Lynn McGuire
2019-10-26 00:44:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Well, this thread is done. Everyone has said everything he has to say
a minimum of twice, and no communication has taken place.
And our asteroid detection system is faulty and our asteroid response
system is non-existent.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-10-26 01:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Well, this thread is done.  Everyone has said everything he has to say
a minimum of twice, and no communication has taken place.
And our asteroid detection system is faulty and our asteroid response
system is non-existent.
Lynn
And you're advocating for money to be spent to prevent a (literally)
once in 66 million year disaster... ...that we actually have no way at
all to prevent...

...while suggesting that nothing at all be done about an actual problem
that is currently happening.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-10-26 02:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Well, this thread is done. Everyone has said everything he has to say
a minimum of twice, and no communication has taken place.
Well, silly you for thinking communication was the point of any of it. :D
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Peter Trei
2019-10-26 05:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Arlo and Janis: asteroids
https://www.gocomics.com/arloandjanis/2019/10/23
Yup, asteroids are the real danger to humans on the Earth. Climate
Change is a made up danger to humans on the Earth.
Keep telling yourself that.
I'm sure it makes you feel better.

pt
Loading...