253 replies to this topic

[FriskyFrog]

Moderator, oh moderator, where are you? I have not been shown respect and my feelings are hurt. :( I demand that you enforce your own board rules and threaten to ban this person immediately!

The board rule is against personal attacks, of which there are none in here ( although you are welcome to use the report function and have it reviewed). The request for respect is how civilized people interact with each other. I'm sorry if any of this is too complicated for you to understand.

[FriskyFrog]

True story..........I once used a derogatory term in here to describe gay people,.....You can just about imagine how I was attacked for it. Then..........in another thread,...Paf continually used the terms Dikes and fudgepackers to describe gays. Not a peep from the mods. NOTHING,....ZILCH, Nada. LOL

To me,...........I could really care less, I just think its funny pointing out the OBVIOUS bias and enjoy doing so. Luckily,........some in here continually provide me with all the ammo I'll ever need. Its alot of fun,..........quit frankly I enjoy pointing out the Bias and rubbing folks faces in THEIR OWN poo!


I see it almost like a sport! LOL

You didn't have your post edited by a moderator for using that term, did you? Other people told you what they thought - that's how free speech works. You can say what you want in here within certain limits and other people can tell you what they think.

[Whisky Dude]

The board rule is against personal attacks, of which there are none in here ( although you are welcome to use the report function and have it reviewed). The request for respect is how civilized people interact with each other. I'm sorry if any of this is too complicated for you to understand.

So telling someone to "SHUT the F up" is not considered a personal attack in your world? Hmmmm..............interesting. I guess that whole southern hospitality thing seems to have changed, and QUITE A BIT.

[FriskyFrog]

So telling someone to "SHUT the F up" is not considered a personal attack in your world? Hmmmm..............interesting.

I've never edited from anyone else before. Do you want this to be a heavily censored environment?

[Duquesne Frog]

Yeah, I think that it is pretty obvious that different standards apply here based on political beliefs. You have certainly conducted yourself much better than many here but your political views are unforgivable to those less tolerant. Fortunately, thanks to Wes and Scott, the main sports forum is not conducted/moderated in that fashion.

Geez, man, you're bringing a little tear to my eye making me think about how mean and horrible we've been to you. Yet, when I go back and review your post history, I find that reality doesn't really jibe with your victim narrative.

The first thread on AGW that you started (to which anyone replied) was titled "Yale Study Shows Climate Skeptics are smarter than AGW alarmists: Skeptics are more scientifically and numerically literate"

So your very first thread sets up the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. A broad stroke insult against anyone who bothers to argue against your point-of-view.

Newfs first response in this thread was a completely dispassionate review of the paper you linked, arguing that you misinterpreted the conclusions, not that the paper argued what your thread title suggested. No insults. Your response to him was: Oooh, looks like this one struck a nerve, eh? and an assertion that peer review is worthless. Not an insult but not exactly indicative of someone with a great deal of interest in discussing the matter intellectually.

When Newf makes another long defense of the merits of peer review including references to multiple papers, and TCUSA responds calling Newf a parrot.



You chime in:

You didn't answer my question. Why do you not have a problem with the IPCC passing off journalistic opinions from environmental wackos as "scientific evidence" in their reports (Amazongate, Glaciergate, etc.)? You can't begin to defend this so I suspect it will be time for another tobacco rant instead.

If Mann's hockey stick is such a great piece of science then why did the IPCC pull it from it's last report (AR4) after displaying it prominently in at least 5 places in the report before that? Actions speak louder than words my friend. And frankly, if you don't know that you can't calculate binomial confidence intervals on severely overlapped data, as you have already shown, then you are in no position to judge any paper that involves even basic statistics.

As for the Yale study showing that finally proves what I have long suspected - that climate skeptics are more scientific and numerically literate than AGW Koolaid drinkers, I think a blogger at Jo Nova's site put it best:

So I count four separate ad hominem insults and/or preemptively undercutting comments in response to a post that tried with excruciating detail to offer the alternative point-of-view.

Newf's response had two marginally snarky responses, one saying your use of -gate suffixes for your various controversies was cliched and that you were arguing in circles.

From there, the whole thread devolves into a massive snark/insult fest, of which you fully and willingly participate.

So as I read it, you hurled the first insults, responded to the first several attempts to legitimately respond to your argument with more insults, and generally got what you wanted when the thread degenerated into a school-yard pissing contest.

Yes indeed, you are clearly the victim.

Your next thread is "New Year’s Resolutions For Climate Scientists" which lists a bunch of claims as to various flaws in the AGW theory and a sole comment:

I think that is a pretty good list. What are the odds that the holy practiticoners of the Pagan Religion of Global Warming will make good on any of these resolutions?

Again, a broad insult for anybody involved with or agreeing with the science. No one took your bait this time.

A month later, you and Whisky continued the same tack:

http://www.dailytele...0-1226258756363

No doubt history will see this as another false climate 'crisis' perpetrated by liberal redistributionists, just like the false global cooling crisis of the 70's.

The UN doesn't even disguise their motives behind its bogus IPCC 'climate science' policy group:

http://news.yahoo.co...-164515165.html

Translation: Rich countries like the US must be punished and we (the UN) will do whatever it takes to accomplish this goal, even if it means creating false 'crises' like the global warming hoax in order to relieve the US of its ill-gotten capitalist wealth.

Again no one bit on this, because no one wanted to get into the absurdity of the conspiracy theory expressed, but the whole point was to demonize anybody who dares disagree with you as Godless communists.

And shall we review your last few posts directed to me and Newf?

... I decided to drop the gloves and treat you like the snotty elitist liberal you are. Oh, excuse me, snotty, elitist, and mathematically incompetent liberal you are.

Once again you [Craig James]/ume wrong and show your stupidity.

Pretty bold assessment coming from someone who is too lazy or incompetent (likely both) to do his own research, preferring instead to frantically cut and paste irrelevant google searches to arguments he is losing. So man up for a change and defend your comments with verifiable facts - or just p*ssy out like you usually do.

It really does sadden my heart how we have victimized you. I really am deeply, deeply sorry ...

[Whisky Dude]

I've never edited from anyone else before. Do you want this to be a heavily censored environment?

of course I dont. As Ive said many times, NONE of this makes any difference to me, I just enjoy pointing out unfair bias when I see it is all. Now...........back to the question at hand....In your opinion,....does telling someone to shut the F up constitute a personal attack? Just trying to understand the rules of the game a little better is all......

[Frog79]

The request for respect is how civilized people interact with each other. I'm sorry if any of this is too complicated for you to understand.

Wishful thinking I'm sure but wouldn't it be nice if we had a moderator who shows respect to others and doesn't disrupt threads, to set an example for us to follow? Just sayin'

[Frog79]

[massive, incoherent rant ending with...] really does sadden my heart how we have victimized you. I really am deeply, deeply sorry ...

Looks like someone is still feeling some butthurt from being owned in this and other 'climate change' threads, lol. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me how my regressions are 'worthless'. Don't suppose you could be bothered to back up your bogus claims for once, could you?

[FriskyFrog]

Wishful thinking I'm sure but wouldn't it be nice if we had a moderator who shows respect to others and doesn't disrupt threads, to set an example for us to follow? Just sayin'

All I did was ask you to honor a request to not use a particular slur. I didn't edit your use of the word, I asked you to be respectful. If you don't like the way I moderate, go to a different board.

[George F. Will]

Newsweek is not primary scientific literature.

Newsweek is also wrong on monetary policy...

[FriskyFrog]

Newsweek is also wrong on monetary policy...

No doubt. I wonder if I'm qualified to sign petitions on the gold standard? I do like money, and I have some gold jewelry.

Edited by FriskyFrog, 15 February 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[George F. Will]

And the guy was booted from wiki for lack of etiquette, not for dishonesty.

I heard he refused to use his salad fork, dreadful...

[George F. Will]

So to be considered a "scientist" you have to have a BS in a scientific field? That's it?

That's BS!

[NewfoundlandFrog]

That's BS!

I had a choice as I met all the requirements of either type of degree--as I took lots of courses broadly as well as deeply--but I could only pick one. Therefore, just to be a contrarian I took my undergrad degrees as BA's rather than BS's just to appear more artsy-fartsy.

A contrarian like you should applaud me for this, correct?

[Duquesne Frog]

Looks like someone is still feeling some butthurt from being owned in this and other 'climate change' threads, lol. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me how my regressions are 'worthless'. Don't suppose you could be bothered to back up your bogus claims for once, could you?

And once again, you make my point for me, you poor victim ...

[George F. Will]

I had a choice as I met all the requirements of either type of degree--as I took lots of courses broadly as well as deeply--but I could only pick one. Therefore, just to be a contrarian I took my undergrad degrees as BA's rather than BS's just to appear more artsy-fartsy.

A contrarian like you should applaud me for this, correct?

Standing O...

I got a minor in studio art...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

And once again, you make my point for me, you poor victim ...

Or, more exactly, "Sic stat."

[Frog79]

And once again, you make my point for me, you poor victim ...

So change the subject when you can't back up your bogus claims? I guess that's what you do when you are caught posting crap - yet again - and can't prove anything. Seems to be a recurring theme for you.

[Frog79]

All I did was ask you to honor a request to not use a particular slur. I didn't edit your use of the word, I asked you to be respectful. If you don't like the way I moderate, go to a different board.

Pretty funny stuff, coming from one of the most insulting posters here. Yet you demand 'respect'. Seems to me that you should follow your own advice first.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Pretty funny stuff, coming from one of the most insulting posters here. Yet you demand 'respect'. Seems to me that you should follow your own advice first.

Correction: FF does not demand respect. She has earned respect. She very rarely corrects anyone in the behavioral sense even in some instances where I think she should. But when she has I can't say I've ever seen her correct someone wrongly. She even corrected me once about an important issue, and guess what? She was dead on, 100% correct.

An adult listens to deserved correction. A less-than-mature person takes the routes of denial and pushback.

Just sayin'.