Oh, "The Left" has it's own peculiarities. But the efforts to turn every one of their own inherent properties into an accusation against their opponents is a hallmark of the Religious Right.
Your argument: the following is a "good test":
Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make. (It doesn't.)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together. The reason for this is that there is some theory we'd have to agree to first..
You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.
One thing at a time. Got to stop *your* gish galloping. If you did this, then in theory we could cover everything.
If, and only if, you reply in a mature fashion, we can continue this discussion.
Its a subscription-based MMO. $15 a month. In today's market, that is a recipe for fail.
On the other hand, I only play games that I pay for. I don't want anything for free, and most definitely not a game. Every single F2P game gives me a creepy feeling.
And I figure, since I'm not exceptional in any way, there are probably other people like me, who are happy to pay for a game that provides value. In fact, if the game was good enough, and provided enough value, I'd pay even more than the current price-tag for an AAA game.
I'm not much on MMO's or really, multiplayer anything, but by charging for their work, at least Blizzard has placed Wildstar in the category of games that I will consider playing.
Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?
The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible.
Enumerating the arguments one-by-one is the opposite of a gish-gallop.
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
What does that mean?
Do you not know what a decadal trend is?
Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating
Are you aware of the difference between declaring there are a lot of aguments, and dumping a lot of arguments all at once?
This is really simple stuff... and that you'd fight about it... just highlights how little self-awareness you have.
And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
Again this is really simple stuff.
How old are you?
You are very good an incorporating the *words* people use against you into your arguments. But that is really the horizon of your talents. Your argument strategy is basically to gish gallop loudly and rather crazily until other person walks away shaking their head. And then you think of yourself as intellectually superior, and "logical" -- without any trace of irony.
HS, about the only thing I managed to teach you was the difference between naive falsification, and finding the "best" theory, and also that Popper was talking about finding good tests, and not iron-clad logical expressions.
It is my belief that you will just incorporate this true knowledge into your delusions. Of that I am certain.
If you are interested in actually learning something about AGW then you can have my time. Otherwise, this has been a great reminder for me about the florid manifestations of the mechanisms of denial.
One thing you can always say about the right-wing in America:
It's always about projection.
They have it in their DNA to try to misdirect by blaming others for that which is their most defining property. They think it's some kind of super-secret jujutsu that they can do because some consultant told them to. But it doesn't fool anyone. Look how long they've been trying it.
Smitty makes a big deal about his Christian faith and lives and breathes dishonesty. He thinks that it's OK because he's doing God's work or something. Just look into fhe faces - into the eyes - of the old-line soldiers in the Right to see where this ends up. Go find a photo of Mark Levin and look at the dead, flat eyes. That is not what the grace of God looks like.
Smitty, let go of the corruption before it gets to the point where it will never let go of you.
. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private.
No, you need for people to be not seen.
The act of watching, when it is not wanted, is a transgression against the individual. Now, you may say we've moved into a "post-individual" age, where only the collective matters, but I'm pretty sure that's not what people want. There is a basic human dignity that is violated by unwanted surveillance on people who are not suspected of crime. It's why the framers of the US Constitution made a big deal about:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It was a good idea then, and it's a much better idea now. Because when corporations and governments have the power of ubiquitous surveillance, there is no way NOT for it to be abused. Governments and corporations just don't know any better, because they are not human.
The fact that there are so many people who object to being watched should be enough. No means no. I have a right to be unwatched as much as a woman has a right to travel unmolested. If I don't want to be watched, I have a right not to be watched, when I'm in my own home, or even walking down the street.
just stopping you from your gish gallop away
You really don't know what that means do you.
(A) is a decadal trend. Less than two decades doesn't make a trend. Still, when (if?) we get to actually doing regressions on surface temp. data, you'll see why its decadal, and also that there hasn't been a pause.
Again, we'll DO THE MATH OURSELVES, so that you can see first hand.
Are we ready for (B), or are you going to insist on changing (A) to suit your needs (?)
Achieving a name recognized by somebody other than you is a somewhat more complex problem, usually requiring a certain amount of give-and-take in terms of "I'll accept your stupid idea if you endure mine" type arrangements.
For all the histrionics about it, Nobody was somehow magically anointed the Super Name Czar by some magically authoritative process. Some organizations have their shit together, and any names in a given domain not endorsed by them are pretty much just private nicknames, some don't; but that's it.
An actually contemporary tape drive(and a machine capable of keeping it fed when it is running full bore) is Not Cheap; but the fleabay shit that is cheap tends to offer painfully mediocre capacity and unknown reliability. Disks, by contrast, have a cost of entry that basically starts at zero and scales more or less linearly with the number of disks, unless you absolutely must have them all online at the same time(and even here, you hardly need screamin' hardware RAID for your backup volume, and bulk SATA ports of undistinguished performance are cheap).
It's a pity that they apparently didn't have the tools to distinguish the wreckage of a white aircraft from snowcap at that time (or in that place); but their odds of having something worth finding were a lot better.