|
Post by helen on Jan 20, 2011 20:41:35 GMT 1
You need to ask that question? Just look back through the threads, I rather thought the anti-science libertarians were rather proud to be tarred with that epithet.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 20, 2011 21:07:14 GMT 1
You need to ask that question? Just look back through the threads, I rather thought the anti-science libertarians were rather proud to be tarred with that epithet. The question is not rhetorical, but never mind, do not answer if you do not wish to do so.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 20, 2011 21:15:08 GMT 1
Marchesarosa doesn't do science or have any intention of engaging with other posters or so she says, just to cut and paste stuff from WUWT for the edification of other viewers. What disingenuous garbage. I'm with louise and STA. There's been a line drawn in the sand , however hateful it might be, between the anti-science libertarians and the rest............maybe it might be a good plan to scrub the line out and try a bit of understanding? Why don't you "engage" with me on the fish thread helen darling?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Jan 20, 2011 21:28:43 GMT 1
Because RSmith, we will just fall out again.....you know well enough that we have different ideas about fish in the north Atlantic. My views are coloured by science and yours by unquantifiable nonsense. So long as you are making a living from your lobsters is all well and good but your thoughts about the north Atlantic fisheries are.....well I don't know. We've been there before. Let it lie.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 20, 2011 22:16:43 GMT 1
You rely on the output from models, darling, where I rely on reality. I told you the cod were back from their foray north, remember. The fishermen from all around the UK confirmed this on camera with solid evidence on Hugh's programme. There are "ideas" then there is reality. I prefer reality.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 1:19:42 GMT 1
I seem to remember Helen was also enjoined not to use the ridiculous "anti-science" epithet as a substitute for argument. She should watch out. Our administrators have made it clear they take a dim view of baiting and needling (and gratuitous obscenties).
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 21, 2011 12:48:44 GMT 1
Our administrators have made it clear they take a dim view of baiting and needling (and gratuitous obscenties). I hope this extends to your needling and baiting of me (isn't that what this whole thread started as)?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 21, 2011 12:56:49 GMT 1
Easy to clear any misunderstanding, louise - just answer a simple question: Are you a paid red/green activist?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 21, 2011 13:03:59 GMT 1
No
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 21, 2011 13:43:15 GMT 1
Then what is your motivation for pedalling CAGW propaganda?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 21, 2011 13:46:12 GMT 1
Come on marchesarosa, where's the DATA, where's the evidence that Louise is 'covering her tracks'............
And I thought releasing original data was one of your bugbears.
Still waiting............
|
|
|
Post by helen on Jan 21, 2011 16:47:34 GMT 1
A little bit of research and I've discovered what a proxy server is, as no one felt inclined to explain here. Wish I'd known about this service when I was banned from these boards before Christmas time. Come on Marchesarosa, spill the beans or is it just paranoia and more folk are to be exiled from these boards for having an opinions contrary to you or RSmith.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 21, 2011 17:07:50 GMT 1
Well, seems to me that a board administrator (who I presume can access IP addresses), can try to stop posters using this anonymous wotsit, the obvious use being to stop posters who have been banned from getting back on.
But I'm still puzzled as to why M seems to be targeting this at certain people, as far as I can see she certainly does seem to be implying that certain people are not legit. But how does she claim to know, that's my question!
Because otherwise, seems and unwarranted and unfair slur, and she should stop casting nasturiums..........................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 21, 2011 20:23:46 GMT 1
Louise is following in the footsteps of others like Havelock and Lazarus. She could be one of them for all I know or care. She is a AGW clone, I do know that - earnest, committed and ignorant. She cannot even interpret a list in temperature order. She is unaware of the myriad "anthropogenic" influneces on climate in which Pielke Sr and Jr are expert but assumes anthropogenic refers only to CO2.
She is a know-nothing ignoramus who lowers the tone of the board while trying to impress her stamp on it. This is not "needling", Louise, it is a well-substantiated opinion. You lower the tone of the board and insult our intelligence. Your only function is to permit the better informed members of the board to engage in a little light didacticism at your expense.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jan 22, 2011 7:12:01 GMT 1
And we wonder why the BBC Science board got shut down!
|
|