Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 421

The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.

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.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 421

No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/a....

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.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 421

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012

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.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 421

First, the links you have provided (as so often has happened) have not linked to the things you assert.

Second, why again are you posting this in reply to a comment about something completely different?

You are cementing the fact that your whole set of rants is not about science, not about professionalism, not about what other people actually SAID, but about your ego and sense of offense at minor implications.

I'm not going to make accusations about your personality but some rather obvious categories come to mind.

And your refusal to give it up after you have been shown to be wrong lends yet more evidence.

I told you long ago that you should have given it up when you had a chance. By now it is far too late.

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 152

by Jane Q. Public (#47440695) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

The last part is your opinion, but the actual rule doesn't put it that way. For example:

And all of this is completely irrelevant to the point I originally made, which is that the regulations you cite don't make a damned bit of difference if Congress didn't give regulatory agencies the authority to make them. That was the whole issue here. It wasn't about what the regulations say. It was about whether FAA (and others, if applicable) have any authority to make them at all about anything other than person-carrying vehicles in the navigable airways. (That was the way the judge put it, more or less.)

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 421

Just for the sake of OTHER PEOPLE who may read this, I will clarify my comment above:

I have certainly claimed that some people who call themselves climate scientists have been telling bullshit lies. (Like the "97%" fabrication by Cook, et al.)

There have been a few other times when, in my opinion, other climate scientists were telling bullshit lies. As opposed to mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. You know the difference, and so do I.

I have no idea -- zero -- whether any of those people are "colleagues" of the guy who calls himself Khayman80. It's pretty hard to either affirm or deny something you just plain don't know.

I have also accused Khayman80 of telling lies, like the lie that I myself am a "pathological liar". (He has substituted other names at various times, but he has definitely aimed that one at me, Jane Q. Public, more than once.) He made the claim many times, yet he wasn't able to show even one instance in which I actually told a lie. Which means he has no reason to either say or believe that I am a "pathological liar", or even a liar at all. So his statements are false, and he knows them to be.

Comment: Re:Dear Fed (Score 1) 159

Sigh.

For about the sixth time, in only about two weeks, I am prompted to remind people of this:

Just recently -- only a couple of months ago -- a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority over small low-altitude drones or models, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.

The ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the judge ruled on the basis that it was never Congress' intent to give FAA authority to do this, and his argument was very strong.

In the meantime, the FAA has seemed to be intent on regulating everything in sight, before the appeals court slaps them down... which it is extremely likely that it will do, since it is pretty clear that it wasn't, in fact, Congress' intent to give the FAA such authority.

In that way, they have been acting just like the EPA, apparently trying to usurp every possible authority they can before the 2014 elections. I have no other explanation for their sudden, intense attempts to pass further regulations.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 421

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies (obviously you don't think your accusations are baseless)? Or are you denying that you're pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender? Or both?

As you well know, I have many times denied both of those.

And I have no reason to continue denying them on demand. Shove it up your ass.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 421

Speaking of which: do you even have a job anymore? I wonder what YOUR employers would think about your rantings here on Slashdot. I doubt they would see them in a very favorable light. Not much of anyone else does, from what I've observed.

Other than pointing out how unethical that post you made above was, I repeat that I am done with you here. You can expect no more replies from me.

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Working...