This is all fine and dandy, but even if all that is true and correct, 1) doesn't that assume that all Muslims are theologians of your calibre to interpret things correctly (and I see them bickering how this and that should be interpreted with a frequency hardly lesser than that of Christians of various denominations arguing over parts of the Bible), and 2) given that it seems that virtually any provision in "holy books" has been misused at least once in history in the way described by the proverb "give the devil your finger, and he'll take the whole arm", often by a charismatic individual to sway weaker people, why should these provisions, of all things, be immune to that?

Because "fortune favors the bold" or "justice is blind" belong to the same category, and nobody objects against those? And I don't think the ancient peoples were dropping acid in college.

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before. [Jane Q. Public]

Then maybe it isn't unreasonable to assert that all the "PSI" misinformation from Lord Monckton, Dr. Salby, Prof. Humlum, and John O'Sullivan is... misinformation. If you notice someone repeating those claims, please consider pointing out that they're ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increasing CO2 in the oceans, isotope ratios, etc.

OR, it's a bunch of porn that you don't want anyone to see but still won't mind losing by accident.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that's what birthers like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Lord Monckton do, right before they deny being birthers.

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, we've already been over this. You're a man named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

The mental contortions you went through to deny that you're posing as a woman were simply awe-inspiring. You implied that you only objected to being called a dude because you're not excessively concerned with clothes, grooming and manners. That doesn't explain why you told hairyfeet to check your name, because "Jane Q. Public" has nothing to do with that, but it is a woman's name. It also doesn't explain why you told Genda to read your name again.

You've also made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer". You evaded this point by arguing with voices in your head and suggesting that "flamers" aren't exclusively guys.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

Like Jane, Lonny can't stand "flamers" and also seems to imply that they're exclusively guys. Otherwise, what kind of surgery did Lonny mean?

Since men can't be lesbians, only a man posing as a woman would say he's not a lesbian which explains Jane's fantasies about hot guys willing to eat him for lunch.

You've claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, and you have news for guys about how crude women are in the locker room. But since you're a man, you could only get first-hand information by spying in the women's locker room. Is that what you did?

If you're not posing as a woman, why do you refer to yourself using "she" and "her"? You've even pretended that I called you "she" when I didn't.

That's why, despite your attempts at false equivalence, my pseudonyms aren't dishonest because I haven't been posing as a woman, despite Jane's baseless speculation to that effect. This might finally explain why Jane referred to me as he/she years ago: psychological projection. Jane/Lonny lies about his gender, so he probably figures everyone else does too.

Actually, given the fallibility of human memory, I don't see how you could convert imperfect memories into anything better than a "machine-forced testimony". You just can't beat entropy by using a magical machine.

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John O’Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but “forgot” to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

Click on "Figure 3" then scroll down to Figure 3 to verify, but this shouldn't be necessary because a comment by truegoogle on your original "PSI" link already made that point.

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

It makes me annoyed that you've been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies at the same time that you're dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus. Since you've just claimed that statement is false, you're putting all your credibility (and Lonny's) on your claim that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus.

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.

If this is supposed to be a counter-argument, it's quite poor due to the obvious logical fallacy.

But only after the crypto library...

It is my understanding that police forces are doing this everywhere. You just can't arrest all the grannies in the area whenever someone gets mugged. You'd have to wait for a utopia for this to end.

I have no communications FBI might want or be able to intercept, my belongings are physically removed from the nearest US territory by at least seventy miles (plus thousands of miles away from the continental US), and I'd be perfectly happy to chat with them in a local café on fascinating international topics, but I suspect the café owner would throw us out before midnight.

Except that he was at least partly right. That doesn't justify his actions, of course, but he was by no means a pure paranoic.

Wouldn't I have to be a right-winger to be able to be a "neo-Macarthyist"? I know I get labeled as a "godless commie" by Americans. Also, my opposition to ludicrous fairy tales with no foundation in reality hardly seems irrational. It's a waste of time at best times, and oftentimes it gives some people stupid ideas.

That's obviously the case. The religious motivation adds an additional impetus, thought. But you're right that the "exemplary citizen" defense doesn't apply to anyone.