Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 424

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.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 424

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

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias.

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.

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias.

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.)

I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way.

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.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 424

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.


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.


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) 424

No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to

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) 424

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.


Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 424

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) 424

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


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) 424

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.

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.