Considering that the Supreme Court just got done slapping down the EPA, for exactly the reason I was discussing here, I don't think either "random" or "FUD" are accurate descriptions of my comment. In your dreams, maybe. It's sad that they're turning into nightmares for you. But be reassured that the reasons for that are good.

Have done so. Many times. If not to him personally, then to his cronies in Congress.

And yet, in Thomas Jefferson's view, would be well worth the cost, and is far more than an order of magnitude (in years) overdue.

Except that these aren't "market inefficiencies".

Tariffs exist for real reasons. For example: the solar industry in China is heavily government-subsidized. So by removing any tariffs, the government would allow them to compete on the "free" market (which really isn't) against other companies in the U.S. and Europe that aren't so heavily subsidized.

When government is subsidizing your industry, it's isn't a real "market". And therefore this does not represent "market inefficiencies".

Make no mistake: there is no "free trade" in this "free trade" agreement. It amounts to pouring buckets of money into China that could go to otherwise profitable companies elsewhere.

What I think is funny is that this is a classic example of a good patent: a "Why didn't I think of that?" kind of thing. Because despite the implications in the article, this ain't "rocket science" all all. They just took the well-known concepts behind any decent heatsink and reversed them.

This also ignores the fact that once a phone is fully encrypted, Android does not support un-encrypting it. Believe me, I know. I encrypted my phone and the only way to un-encrypt it, even according to the experts, was to do a restore from a bit-by-bit "nandroid" backup from before the encryption.

I would just like to point out one more thing about your post:

It demonstrates, quite clearly, the obsession you have had about me, by the depth to which you have tried to research my actions. And also the depths to which you will sink in order to try to make your assumed findings a problem in my social life.

If that isn't evidence of mal intent, I don't know what is.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor.

I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you.

Holy fuck again. You are arguing about something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.

NOW you're arguing against things I did not say years ago. WTF?

You're quoting YOURSELF about things you THOUGHT I said (and we have been over that before) YEARS AGO???

Are you for real? I have asked one attorney and he has referred me to another. So far, that is the truth.

I am going to quote you ]so that there is no way you can pretend you didn't say it:

I don't think you know what "pathological" means, and I don't think you appreciate the HISTORICAL, TIME-HONORED tradition of using a psuedomym. Your problem with that is entirely your own and most people do not share it. Hint: that means it's your issue, dude. Deal with it. You don't get to make it a problem for other people.

Excuse me? Have you even once shown me to make an argument about AGW that was "a lie" (i.e., something I knew to be false)? NO? I mean really, NO? Then what is this all about? (Suggestion: not what you say it is.)

Um, HUH? This makes no sense. I haven't made any "pathological lies". WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS, AND YOU LOST. Where is your failure to understand? It isn't mine, and it isn't right or honest -- or possibly even legal -- that you are trying again to make it my problem.

Yes, indeed! It is going to be interesting to see who is spreading "civilization-paralyzing misinformation". But in the meantime, you don't get to define "misinformation" to be whatever offends your ego. As much as I hate to say it, hat's what courts are for.

I will point out where you have worked to make it ambiguous: you have claimed (just above) that I have spread "misinformation", when in fact, while I have been wrong at times, I have always made a great effotr to make arguments that were fact-based. I might not have always succeeded, but I did better than you. I make no more claim than that right now, but you should pay attention.

"Correlation = causation", with exactly one data point.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Holy fuck. YOU ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEBODY WHO USED THE SAME (PRETTY DAMNED COMMON) PSEUDONYM, AND SOMEBODY ELSE, GOT THE SAME SPAM, THE SAME YEAR, THAT IS EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING?

Are you for real???

Not only do you demonstrate IGNORANCE of the fact that what you bring up is a SPAM marketing email probably sent to millions, you (illogically) conclude that SOMEBODY ELSE using the "Jane Q. Public" pseudomym was ME, you THEN suggest that someone else responded to the sme spam email sent to millions was ME?

I am beginning to understand where that "97%" claim came from: PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING CLUE HOW STATISTICS ACTUALLY WORK.

You can CHOOSE whether you belong to that group, or shut up. Your choice.

Hint, Mr. clueless dude: these spam messages go out en masse, and they hit hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes millions, AND Jane Q. Public is a pretty GODDAMNED common pseudonym, which is one of the 2 reasons I chose it in the first place.

So I say again: For the sake of all that is reasonable, give up your obsessive quest. The fact that I am forced to describe it that way should be a clue to a person who is at least trying to be reasonable. And your attempt to say I am one of millions, MANY OF WHOM USE THE SAME NAME, is nothing short of ridiculous.

IF YOU CLAIM TO BE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, YOU DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY WHY CLIMATE SCIENCE IS DISTRUSTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE THINKING PUBLIC.

Have a nice day. You worked hard for it. And thanks for the win.

You still don't get it. This is where your logic fails (as it so often has): even if I did link to that file, here is all it REALLY "proves":

1) Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file. This is a rather obvious explanation I have given you several times, but you have refused to even consider it.

2) Point out again where I have denied any such thing. You keep lying about this, then falsely accusing ME of lies when I point it out.

3) (In association with 2): the whole thing is a loaded question. I have no way of answering it honestly because the very question is worded such that in order to answer at all, I must admit to one or more of your fantasies. Score: You: 0

And I will add 4) why does anybody on this earth, except you, care about something that even if it went the way you say it did (which is false) care? ONLY you. Not me. Not anybody else. Except maybe a court of law. You have a weird obsession and it's FAR PAST time you went away.

Correction: "Quotes I may (or may not have) made about other people..." should have been "Quotes I may (or may not have) made OF other people..."

But I think what I meant was still pretty clear.

Well, I am happy that those things link to the things you want, but they aren't evidence of the things you SAY. Again, simple logic escapes you.

I am going to repeat that I am replying only in self-defense in public; otherwise I wouldn't give a damn about your fantasies. What you don't seem to realize is that even if what you linked to were actually some kind of actual, deliberate act of my own, it would only constitute an implication of an opinion. Again, you fail to understand the difference between reality and opinion, or even worse in this case: an implication of an opinion. This is a rather large failure, as I have been trying to tell you for several years now.

Quotes I may (or may not have) made about other people are their words, and I am not responsible for making them.

ALL evidence says you just don't get it. I honestly don't know whether it is your ego that won't let you get it, or some other reason, but you clearly don't get it. You have been doing all the things you have accused others of doing, and apparently even imagining they are doing.

That's called fantasy. And in my honest opinion, based on your real actions, I am beginning to think it's dangerous fantasy.

GO AWAY. LEAVE ME ALONE.