INTENSITY²

Arena for the Competitive => Main Event Callouts => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on April 15, 2017, 05:05:51 AM

Title: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 15, 2017, 05:05:51 AM
In your breakneck clamouring and haste to denounce someone that doesn't defend every Muslim under every instance (sorry wrong argument) doesn't say that every instance someone blames a specific change in the climate to man's efforts, they are 100% correct to do so without citing evidence to back their assertion, you have not actually paid any attention to what I said and importantly what I DID NOT say.

So whilst you can say any damn thing you like. Callouts are where you actually HAVE to back yourself.

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

If you find this part hard, it will get harder as I start highlighting elements of what I ACTUALLY said and not what you imagined or read into things.

Your point of view and narrative of my position will drift further and further away.

This will, of course, degenerate as you well know, because you are unable to admit you had the wrong end of things and were in the wrong with the positions you projected on me, and I will tenaciously pursue it. I WILL keep it to callout UNLESS you choose NOT to resolve it in the callout, in which case I will not vouch for where it will go.

But hey, you could have chosen not to project positions on me I did not hold and double down on them. Your choice. Let's see where this ends up. Let's hope it does not end in months-long feuding and/or more moderation and censorship on this free speech platform built on freedom of expression and combativeness. Especially if a bit of honesty may clear things up.

After all it is Easter.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 15, 2017, 04:09:35 PM
Well, since it's Easter.
Clinton wanted to invest more in green energy and climate change mitigation.
Trump wants to invest in coal and pretend climate change doesn't even fucking exist.
Even though Big Oil are finally acknowledging the problem of climate change.

Does climate change exist?
Does man's interaction with the environment change the climate measurably?
How measurably?

Here is the thing, people get two positions confused. Is the climate "changing"? YES! Will it continue to change? Yes. Are some of these changes not beneficial for us? Yes.
Has the Earth always been changing? Yes. Was it changing before we were around? Yes. Will it continue to change long after we stop existing on this planet? Yes. Are some of these changes bad for humans? Yes. [/quote]

So, this is your long intro. The concept is familiar. Point out that the climate has been changing since before man was capable of changing it. Point out it's bad, just to keep you on the right side of things.

Quote
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.

Here's where it goes wrong. How much is "to some extent"? Not much, apparently, since you qualify with "perhaps". This is the part where you acknowledge that yeah, sure, maybe, perhaps, some of it may have had something to do with man. Except that your whole attitude here belittles the idea. Remember, I was not the only one to read your comments in this way.

Do you understand how modern science works? Do you understand why scientists practically never say "this is a fact" unless they are 100% sure? No, I did not think you did. My guess is that you've never worked as one, and I'm fairly sure you do do not have the training. It's called a theory because it's not certain. It's pretty damned close, though, because there are no alternatives, no Trump-friendly ideas to cast the theories into serious doubt, just some numbers in independent studies that are not 100% sure. But if you get some of the scientists to meet up, the conclusions they suggest--again theories--are pretty damned scary.

Climate change because of man, because of what we've done in the last 100 years or so, is one of the more stronger theories there is. Do you need to examine the evidence? Would you like to have a look at something recent or would you like to go back to the first half of the last century, when scientists--engineers, actually, if I remember it correctly--started to notice?

Is this where you say that your "perhaps" was just your way of stating that you don't know? If so, just say so. Because anyone with any insight into this particular science already knows you don't. You have no clue. You just want to phrase yourself in some ridiculously hesitant, conservative manner. Why? I have no fucking clue but you're making yourself look stupid and ignorant.

Quote
How much? Dunno.

When people deny climate change the Liberals call them stupid and say that it is proved that the environment is changing and the climate is changing and so ...duh....man is changing the environment and so the climate is changing. But is he. If so to what extent. To what extent would any measure make any difference?

It is not known and it is all theory.

This is just more of the same. Not known, all theory.

Here's the thing, though: Yes, it's a theory but its so probable it's scary. Remember that NASA link I posted? It's sort of a beginner's introduction to climate change. It's just the basics.

Read it. Try to understand it.

The circumstantial evidence is very strong and comes from many different branches of science. Astronomers can point to parts of it, meteorologists to more, and geophysicists to even more. This is not something that should be up to debate unless you have some fresh and conflicting data to counter it with. It's rather like having someone pointing a gun at you and starting to question the need to worry based on you thinking your would-be assassin might have forgotten to load the gun when he just killed someone else.

Quote
It would be beyond stupid to thing that nothing man does has any affect on anything or that there is not measurable changes in the climate or whatever. But it would be equally as stupid to blame this all on man. Somewhere on a VERY long spectrum lays the truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion and NO ONE has trhe ultimate truth on this.

Anyone who pretends to is made more foolish by the pronouncement.

So.....your point?

Cast it into doubt, sound reasonable, try to evade. It's all there is?

No.

This is not just any theory. It's akin to that gun pointed at you. Yes, it might not be loaded but the probability speaks against you. And right now, you're not only hinting that the gun isn't loaded but that your would-be assassin would miss even if it was. And that's just stupid.

Here is where you admit that that while you don't actually know, everything suggests that man-made climate change is real. Because every other suggestion you might have would be incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 15, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Oh, and you could, of course, say you did indeed say "perhaps", hinting that you meant "probably". In which case you'd do well to clarify. You could say that yes, the evidence does indeed suggest we've done this, we are to blame. It's all it takes. I'll leave you be.

Of course, that will make this callout look stupid, and rightly so. But then, I did not force you to start it.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 15, 2017, 08:29:01 PM
Oh, and you could, of course, say you did indeed say "perhaps", hinting that you meant "probably". In which case you'd do well to clarify. You could say that yes, the evidence does indeed suggest we've done this, we are to blame. It's all it takes. I'll leave you be.

Of course, that will make this callout look stupid, and rightly so. But then, I did not force you to start it.

But here is where you have the wrong end of it and I knew you would. What specific aspect of climate change am I talking about? Better still, what can be said to be caused by climate change?

Now at this point, you may wish to reflect that many, many things get accused of being caused by Climate change and NOT all by Scientists. The fact that we know there is a thing called climate change allows people to call any bothersome change in climate, Climate change. Some MAY be right some MAY NOT be right.

So what is the mindset one should have when very ANY specific claim of climate change is made? "Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps."

Yes, scientific enquiry actually demands that at EACH instance of proclaimed climate change it is ACTUALLY Man made climate change or if it is not. IF it is then to what extent is this caused by man and if so how much is solely by him and how much by any other mitigating factor, and how much can the specific factors of man by corrected?

Why? Because it is not enough to say "Well X has change from what I remember, or from what it used to be, therefore this change in climate is climate change (Man made climate change)". Was THIS specific change, man-made climate change? It CANNOT be a default because " Is the climate "changing"? YES! Will it continue to change? Yes. Are some of these changes not beneficial for us? Yes. Has the Earth always been changing? Yes. Was it changing before we were around? Yes. Will it continue to change long after we stop existing on this planet? Yes. Are some of these changes bad for humans? Yes."

So If we know ANY change may not be man-made climate change. The more likely it is to be man-made climate change depends on how much research has been done into it and how much data has borne out solid results. Some of the claims have no such research, data and nor has the Scientific community much to say on a specific claim.

So, therefore we can say that whilst climate change undoubtably exists it DOES NOT make every claim and every instance of proclaimed claim "climate change" equally as valid or credible, and you can throw study after study at me and it does not make this claim any less true. It is the equivalent of me making a proclamation that Blondes are Ditzy and then to back this up, referring you to ditzy blonde after ditzy blonde (Blondes are not necessarily ditzy - this is simply illustrative - and I feel sillier having to point this out).

Furthermore, it is naive to think that we have all the answers, we do not. Even with what we actually know, it is work in progress. "It would be beyond stupid to think that nothing man does have any effect on anything or that there are not measurable changes in the climate or whatever. But it would be equally as stupid to blame this all on man. Somewhere on a VERY long spectrum lays the truth and everyone is entitled to an opinion and NO ONE has the ultimate truth on this.

Anyone who pretends to is made more foolish by the pronouncement."

So if someone comes to me and says that the drought in Australia is man-made, I would say "That is an interesting thought. How do you figure?" I would listen them out. They may be right or wrong, naturally, but I would be interested in hearing the evidence they have to support it. As impressive as this may be, I would want to know how they could exclude the very real chance that it is simply the Earth being itself. Furthermore again, I would be more impressed if they came up with solutions to reversing this trend or a minimisation strategy.
The default position is not to say that they are a kook, nor is it to say what they are telling me is truth or that it is completely wrong. That goes for scientists as well. They are not completely infallible.

What I have no time for is someone who may say" Yeah, the drought is bad. Climate change. Man did this", with a knowing and solemn nod of the head, but when pressed about it being an interesting theory to expand on, them saying "Of course it is climate change by man. Don't you know what climate change is? What shape is the Earth? Do you even Gravity?"

No, you will need more than that and you MAY be right. Perhaps? Does this climate change caused by man exist? Maybe. To some extent, perhaps (Man has been in Australia for 50 000 years and has been industrialised for a good couple of hundred years. It is not outside of the realms of possibility that ANY such claim may have at least some truth to it).

But of course this was not THE specific example and there is claim after claim not specific to Australia and the drought but many, many such claims. Are they automatically to be believed when man-made climate change is the go to default? No, you will need more than that and you MAY be right. Perhaps? Does THAT climate change caused by man exist? Maybe. To some extent, perhaps

One thing I have learned is that people like to think that they are smarter than what they are. When they do not know something, they tend to reinforce and general on what little they do know to feel smarter and more superior or intellectual.
Rather than point this out with climate change again, I will give an example of this that most of us know well.

"My child has Autism"
"Righhhtt...Autism. Umm...that is pretty tough. ...Still, they do have pretty unique talents like Maths and photographic memories. They can recall pretty cool stuff"
"Oh, you have seen Rainman too?"

Compare with:

"Uhhhh, it's been a nasty long winter"
"Climate change, huh? Damn, you humans and your driving cars"
"Right, should have known this Winter's length was caused by Climate Change"

So as stated, every instance of "Climate change" does need to stand up to some scrutiny and accepting it exists is NOT saying that every claim is equally as valid or equally as credible.

Quote
Therefore is climate changing a result of man being on Earth? Some. Maybe. To some extent. Perhaps.

Until we know the specific claim in question we do not have the extent of the change or whether it is included in the "some" climate change that is man-made climate change. It's stupid to pretend otherwise. I meant exactly what I meant and do not need you reinterpreting to suit your narrative. Nor does your assassion metaphor bear the slightest resemblence to what I said or inmplied and it would be beyond moronic to think so.

Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 15, 2017, 08:38:10 PM
So Odeon

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

Again this IS my position and this is what you are arguing against:

Quote
Between the position of "all the evidence is in and everything is decided on climate change and we know what we pertain to know" (your position) and "climate change is all bullshit and a hoax. None of it is true and it is a monumental scam by stupid Liberals (the position you are stupidly implying that I hold), is a position that I ACTUALLY hold.

Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 16, 2017, 03:18:20 AM
That's the problem with you, Al. You produce lots of text but very, very little substance. Your latest efforts here could drive anyone to tears, trying to understand what you actually think about climate change. Me, all I see is still your vague admission of something, somewhere being caused by man. Perhaps. Which is why people reacted and thought you were a climate change (as in caused by man; we're NOT talking about any other change, unless it's required in, say, a comparative statement) denier.

So, again, in your own words (and as few of them as possible), tell us what you actually think about climate change.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 16, 2017, 03:20:09 AM
Oh, and I meant to ask you:

What is the ideology you mention in the subject line?
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 16, 2017, 03:52:24 AM
That's the problem with you, Al. You produce lots of text but very, very little substance. Your latest efforts here could drive anyone to tears, trying to understand what you actually think about climate change. Me, all I see is still your vague admission of something, somewhere being caused by man. Perhaps. Which is why people reacted and thought you were a climate change (as in caused by man; we're NOT talking about any other change, unless it's required in, say, a comparative statement) denier.

So, again, in your own words (and as few of them as possible), tell us what you actually think about climate change.

Let me think about your request....how about ...no? That is right. YOU have made the claims and regardless of what anyone else may or may not think or your inability to appreciate or understand my position, YOU have sought to make claims regardless. Claims that YOU will back up and, no I do not much care for doing things to make it easier for you to do this.

Here is the thing, Odeon, IF you were to have not understood, then the time to get clarification is BEFORE making unsubstantiated claims and BEFORE the callout. You see how this works, don't you? The horse has bolted and I do not need to pander to you and give you a second chance to make different choices. You get to back your positions.

Be specific, Odeon.

Quote
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

If you cannot do THIS much then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot. So I am not feeling obliged to help you do so.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 16, 2017, 03:56:07 AM
Oh, and I meant to ask you:

What is the ideology you mention in the subject line?

No harm asking. I will even answer.....as soon as you actually address:

Quote
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

and

Quote
then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot.

Tit for tat. But it better be more than you simply taking issue with my way of putting myself across. You make the claims and now you back them. For all your condescension you better have something to back what you claimed.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2017, 01:46:24 AM
Idiot. You still think it's about you disputing a specific scientist? Here's what you need to do:

1. Work on your reading comprehension.
2. Edit your posts.
3. Learn to articulate.

And, of course, stay out of callouts that will embarrass you.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2017, 01:52:39 AM
This is where you admit that man-made climate change is real and is causing us problems. It's where you acknowledge that those changes outweigh any natural variations over the last century or two.

Just a hint. It will make you look slightly less stupid.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 17, 2017, 04:49:38 AM
Odeon, so your counter to me is to take a position that I already took from the first instance and to write according to your wishes?
Well, that is idiocy defined. Take a bow, you clown.

It would be beyond stupid to thing that nothing man does has any affect on anything or that there is not measurable changes in the climate or whatever.

Now, let's go back to find which claim of climate change or which scientist I have denounced. No more deflection. You made big claims of me and now you back them. I will not go racing in to edit my posts to make them palatable to you or easier for you to comprehend. You made big claims, I have called you on them and now you are in a callout to explain your positions.

Quote
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?

Any specificity here or are you going to spin your wheels some?

and

Quote
then we can move into whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all.

I think you will find that I have not. So this is going to make your case rather difficult regardless of whether I use a few words or a lot.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2017, 11:20:14 PM
How stupid will you get? Fucking idiot.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 17, 2017, 11:37:05 PM
How stupid will you get? Fucking idiot.

Settle down, Odeon.

Throwing insults around has its place in a callout, but you need to back yourself....and you are not.

If you did not want another callout, you would have either not made the claims you did or would have backed what you said. I know you have painted yourself into a position where faux indignation, deflection, distraction, baseless insults and doubling smug feeling of superiority.....but none of that is backing yourself, and I will hold you to that.

It is best it is addressed here than all over the board. In fact, that is why this forum was designed. Everyone prefers that. If you can't back this and address the claims I can't keep it to the forum. I prefer it dealt with here. I hope you do too.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2017, 01:49:54 PM
Sorry, Al, but it's the only explanation I have. Most others would have understood the points I made here, and some reacted against your original post exactly the way I did. This means you're bad at expressing yourself and suck at reading comprehension.

Of course, it could be that those two are separate issues but that would be arguing semantics, really.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2017, 01:52:03 PM
And while it's sort of fun to watch the train wreck that is you trying to argue, I think we are done here. Ask the peanut gallery who won.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 18, 2017, 03:01:33 PM
And while it's sort of fun to watch the train wreck that is you trying to argue, I think we are done here. Ask the peanut gallery who won.

You have not backed a thing you have claimed, which is the intent of a callout.
A callout is not simply a popularity contest.So no.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2017, 03:16:17 PM
/shrugs

I'm going to be charitable and say it's two separate issues.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 18, 2017, 03:39:07 PM
Sorry, Al, but it's the only explanation I have. Most others would have understood the points I made here, and some reacted against your original post exactly the way I did. This means you're bad at expressing yourself and suck at reading comprehension.

Of course, it could be that those two are separate issues but that would be arguing semantics, really.

The way I see it there are other very equal possibilities. I have expressed one already. The kneejerk "He did not outright support all instances of climate change and therefore he must be a climate change denier".
That is one. Another (and why I thought Meowsy was Scrap) is I rather thought with such a poor understanding of what I said, that they did a Scrap (which is to extrapolate a base reading from what is such without really reading through things. Scrap still hits the mark as often as not but that is as much him being him as me writing long posts). There may be some priming "Al is arguing again, let's tune out" or perhaps "I think Odeons positions are so readonable that I will not care to understand a contesting or alternate point of view" or perhaps "Let's show solidarity here because we do not like the way this looks to be going" or "Al is just arguing for the sake of arguing and is not worth reading"

Could be many more possibilities too. Listing what YOU consider faults of mine do not matter at all.

It does not address a single claim you say and as I said, this is your chance to address it here. You made the claims and now you evidence them not with disapproval for HOW I said what I said but rather what I DID say.

You may have well not liked how I said something but your claims were not about disliking how I said things. They are rather about what you claims I was saying and for that you need to show that the claism are correct or not. I have given you some clear sign posts. You have not addressed them and we know why you cannot. I did not claim what it is you said I claimed.

You lied, as you do. You were wrong as you hate admitting you are.

At the very easiest measure of proof:

What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all?

Let's face it for climate change denialism, these above are about the easiest standards I or anyone could foist on you to evidence, and you cannot do it. At this point ANY rational thinking person would raise their hand and admit they had nothing, never did and that their claims were stupid and dishonest, doubling down was even sillier and more dishonest.

Yet you don't. THAT is NOT on me. Not in the slightest. THAT is your reason for being here.

You CAN choose NOT to resolve it here in its proper setting and in its proper setting. (I think that best) I can choose to indignantly NOT keep it unresolved here and this may start feuding all over the board again. On this freedom of expression, combative forum it is a gentleman's rule that we keep feuding in call out and a gentleman's rule that one has to back themselves. I do think both are best but not essential.

Make the claim? Then back the claim when called out on it.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on April 19, 2017, 12:03:37 AM
Oh, I see. Either I continue a meaningless bullshit callout or you start shitting all over the board again? That's an interesting approach.

Here's the thing, though. You formulated yourself so poorly that many members thought you were denying man-made climate change. When called out on it, you then clarified yourself so poorly that while you didn't deny it all, you hinted that while some things could be caused by man, maybe, perhaps, most probably aren't. A stance worth a politician. Well, perhaps not--I'm not here to insult politicians--but worth Trump.

No specific denials, of course, just the vague probably, perhaps, maybe, an ignorant man's attempt at being reasonable the one time he would have needed to show some actual backbone.

Instead you chose to make it about specifics when you never offered any.

This is now over, Al, like it or not.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Al Swearegen on April 19, 2017, 03:30:25 AM
Oh, I see. Either I continue a meaningless bullshit callout or you start shitting all over the board again? That's an interesting approach.

Here's the thing, though. You formulated yourself so poorly that many members thought you were denying man-made climate change. When called out on it, you then clarified yourself so poorly that while you didn't deny it all, you hinted that while some things could be caused by man, maybe, perhaps, most probably aren't. A stance worth a politician. Well, perhaps not--I'm not here to insult politicians--but worth Trump.

No specific denials, of course, just the vague probably, perhaps, maybe, an ignorant man's attempt at being reasonable the one time he would have needed to show some actual backbone.

Instead you chose to make it about specifics when you never offered any.

This is now over, Al, like it or not.

Nope, here is the thing. You say that I needed to state specifics, you have it precisely ass-backwards.

I was actually stating that there is a lot not known and that whilst climate change does exist and some of that is caused by man the specifics are precisely the problem. That does not make me ignorant as it does make me more open to the best evidence for any particular claim. I am not prepared to dismiss any party coming to the table. Present good opinions on any perceived man made or man influenced change in the climate and I will listen and may well agree with that particular claim. If you disagree with the reasons for that particular claim or you think that that particular claim is not man influenced but caused by some other factor, I will listen to that too.

So no, it would be foolish to say that EVERY claim is equally as valid or credible. It is also stupid to say I would need to state specifics. It has NOTHING to do with not having backbone or convictions. Really stupid.

But as mentioned, you had it ass-backwards.

It is not ME that needs to make specific. It is you. Why? Because YOU made specific claims and allusions about what I specifically said. When asked to show why you made those specific claims you vaguely foist it away from yourself at what others thought. The others are not in the callout. YOU are.

You made claims you need to back. That is all. You haven't. You have relied on several go to settings to avoid having to back yourself. You have insulted me, deflected, said what amounts to "everyone else was doing it too", and said that what I wrote was not specific.

Not a radical notion here, BUT if someone was to make claims that were NOT clear to you, then surely only an idiot would make specific claims based on what they were not clear about? Surely if you were to make a specific claim about someone (On I2 of all places) then you would be able to point to where the person has said or done what you were accusing them of?

I mean, this is not exactly rocket science. The bar I set you was at the idiot level as it is. Basically, it was, show me anything I said. To which your argument is:

"Well, you are an idiot. You have to write more clearly for me to understand and now that I have been called for what I can't back, I want you to retroactively edit what I have already made claims on. I have been called on claims I made about what you said but now it is apparent I can't actually point to anything you said that supports my claim, I will both say "the other boys were doing it too"", and then you stop playing.

This is petulant and immature BUT is still not backing yourself. This is where you have to back yourself, Odeon. If you were not interested in backing yourself then you ought not have made claims you could not back. In fact, given the recent history between us, that goes double. The callout is not meaningless bullshit, for that reason. I clearly do not really give a shit about Climate Change. But I think you talking crap that you cannot back and then refusing to give account of in callout IS not meaningless.



Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: rock hound on June 18, 2017, 02:30:56 PM
It is what it is, Al! 
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Gopher Gary on June 18, 2017, 04:00:09 PM
I already won this one two months ago.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: odeon on June 19, 2017, 12:15:14 AM
It is what it is, Al!

You are what you are, Ozy. I guess you just can't help yourself.
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: 'andersom' on June 19, 2017, 12:24:54 AM
 :lol1:
I already won this one two months ago.  :zoinks:
:lol1:
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: "couldbecousin" on June 19, 2017, 04:59:10 AM
  I love that little twerp gopher.  In a sick sort of way. :gopher: :zoinks:
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: 'andersom' on June 19, 2017, 05:08:27 AM
  I love that little twerp gopher.  In a sick sort of way. :gopher: :zoinks:

Always knew you were the sick sort of egg.  :-*
Title: Re: Odeon, here is where condescending ideological aggression hits the tarmac
Post by: Gopher Gary on June 19, 2017, 05:41:56 PM
Here's me and the weeble, being awesome in a sick sort of way.  :zoinks:

:cbc:  :gopher: