|
Abuse
May 15, 2011 15:56:10 GMT 1
Post by louise on May 15, 2011 15:56:10 GMT 1
I was threatened with being banned when I said 'pot, kettle?' to Marchesarosa when she accused me of personal attacks.
I have recently been told to Piss off and have been called a time-waster, a joke, a numpty, a prat, a gullible fool and have been accused of character assasination (that's rich), moralising, scare-mongering and a whole host of other things.
Apart from my earlier 'pot, kettle?' comment I have not responded to any of this petty play-ground style name calling other than occaisionally to question why its author has chosen to take the debate to that level.
I suspect that the answer (not given out loud of course) is that the author is hoping to cause me to retaliate in kind. That's not the way I engage in debate. I am always happy to respond to points of substance but when they come packaged like this then it is difficult to see what sort of response is expected.
I have been accused of being a paid green crusader, a user of a proxy server, an alcoholic and many other things on this board - I am none of these. I am an interested lay person who wants to engage in discussion regarding the cause(s) of the climate and weather.
What am I doing wrong?
|
|
|
Abuse
May 15, 2011 17:12:26 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on May 15, 2011 17:12:26 GMT 1
Not agreeing with everything marchesarosa says?
|
|
|
Abuse
May 15, 2011 19:35:06 GMT 1
Post by principled on May 15, 2011 19:35:06 GMT 1
Louise I don't like personal attacks either, unless they are posted in humour.
I'd say just keep posting the science as you see it. I don't always agree with your scientific points of view, but I defend to the hilt your right to express them.
As we engineers used to say "'nil carborundum illegitimi'". Although, sometimes I have to admit that I don't always take heed of it! P
|
|
|
Abuse
May 16, 2011 8:28:58 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on May 16, 2011 8:28:58 GMT 1
Take the rough with the smooth without whining, as I always have done, Louise. Was I not the picture of stoicism under fire on the beeb science board when you and your pals hardly ever talked climate science but merely bleated about my presence on their hitherto ideologically pure board?
I would turn your attention to STA's posting history both here and on the beeb if you really wish to see what you term "abuse". Look at Science Biker's delicate contributions, too, that somehow evaded censure from the likes of you and your clones. STA earns her keep here in other ways because she's smart. You are not. That's why YOU should expect a bit of ribbing. This is NOT an equal opportunities open access board for dummies. You may be polite but you're stoopid, Louise, like all alarmists, in terms of the subjects you choose to raise here. Sorry!
Carry on posting by all means, but please don't whine. No-one likes a whiner.
|
|
|
Abuse
May 16, 2011 9:01:08 GMT 1
Post by StuartG on May 16, 2011 9:01:08 GMT 1
As a mere male I know my place....
|
|
|
Abuse
May 16, 2011 10:30:50 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on May 16, 2011 10:30:50 GMT 1
Shut up!
|
|
|
Abuse
May 16, 2011 11:31:39 GMT 1
Post by jonjel on May 16, 2011 11:31:39 GMT 1
And you Marchesa are damned rude.
|
|
|
Abuse
May 16, 2011 14:20:21 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on May 16, 2011 14:20:21 GMT 1
And informative, unlike Louise.
|
|
|
Abuse
May 18, 2011 0:57:53 GMT 1
Post by speakertoanimals on May 18, 2011 0:57:53 GMT 1
So, seems okay for M to call lousie stupid, but if I did the same as regards M and mean temperatures................
You don't need a supercomputer to make that prediction!
So, never mind a proper assessment of the evidence in each case, M already KNOWS we're all stupid. How nice!
As someone else said, damn rude anyway!
|
|
|
Abuse
May 18, 2011 7:37:28 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on May 18, 2011 7:37:28 GMT 1
Self confessed "alarmist", STA? Well, I never! I thought you were an objective, dsipassionate scientist?
|
|