Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:1998 (Score 1) 86

Yes, I am well aware that this government has been going down a slow march to totalitarianism for several decades now. It was the early 90s when they started militarizing the police and eroding away our rights.

Do you know there was a time when police with a warrant would, in nearly every single case, knock on the door and wait for someone to answer, then, talk to them. Now they just yell "police" while they bust n the door and throw in a flashbang over just about anything at all.

This has all been a long time coming, and nothing is good about it.

Comment Re:So, eat in courses? (Score 1) 256

Nah they stopped drinking so long ago I don't think I ever saw her drink wine. Apparently they threw quite the shindig back in the day and grammy's drink was whiskey.

Oh did I forget to mention she not only grew up during the depression, but was a bookie for the mob for a while? Apparently she hated it when people won because she had to travel to the north end to pick up the money for them.

90 Years old and she still just smiles and says "I am not going to name any names"

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Oops. Time to correct myself. After a quick glance over (which is all this is worth), I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2).

I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.

Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?

It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium in which you were addressed the other day.

But from experience, I think that's about as likely as contracting leprosy from a wild armadillo... in Vermont.

More likely -- again just my opinion but justified by circumstances -- you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Wait... I will amend that.

Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.

Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.

I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If you're going to discuss Twitter, why don't you copy ALL of what I said here?

The obvious answer is that yet again you want the advantage of misrepresenting things, outside the real context in which you were shown to be acting and writing foolishly.

No sympathy here. As I stated earlier, you have been reported. Your blatantly unethical behavior is being recorded for posterity. Have a day.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

No, you don't even have a single solitary example of me using that d-word.

Admittedly it was a paraphrase. Far be it from me to intentionally put words in the mouth of someone else. However, the gist remains... I have you on record belittling nearly every scientist I mention who disagrees with your belief, and putting on pedestals those who agree with it. I also have you on record telling me all about your apparently unshakable belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and that someone who disagrees is endangering humanity.

I also enjoyed (no, "enjoyed" is not the right word, "got some satisfaction out of" would be more accurate) your tacit admission above that by harassing people, you feel you're acting as the point man for the Climate Police Goon Squad. Pretty rich, that one. Not your exact words, of course, but as you do seem to realize, actual context is very important.

I don't care what your religion is. That doesn't give you license to harass or libel people.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

"And by the way, if you really wanted me to go away, you wouldn't have written back again []." Repeatedly. On both Twitter and Slashdot.

The circumstances are not remotely comparable. I haven't deliberately and incessantly intruded into YOUR conversations in order to harass you, or any other individual. You clearly have been doing so to me. I reply simply to defend myself from your misrepresentation and libel.

Your behavior is nothing like mine. In any significant way. Dream on.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

For instance: John Cook

John Cook is not a "mainstream scientist". He's a cartoonist. Get real. But of course, you have seldom let facts get in the way of your libel.

According to many past statements of yours, anybody on "your side" of the argument is a "scientist". Anybody else is a denier.

I have reams of examples.

Further, your statement that I have "harassed" those people, as opposed to just making occasional critical comments of their work, is libel. It's utterly false. And rather egregious libel at that. You're projecting your own behavior on to me, when in fact (again there are reams of documented evidence): I have not "harassed" these people. You, on the other hand, clearly HAVE harassed people. As you're doing now.

Every time you make comments like this, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

I will not discuss tweets with you here on Slashdot. If you want to respond appropriately, you will do so in the same medium you are supposedly responding to.

Doing otherwise is strong evidence that you intend (just as you did here) to misrepresent statements out of context. It is also evidence of harassment. Which brings up: why have you been so obsessed with my comments to other people?

Cross-media posting is one of the characteristic hallmarks of cyberstalkers.

You have been reported. Again.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

If?! IF the quote I showed him which I labeled "2013" wasn't from a 2015 paper, then Lonny's comment about a 2015 paper wasn't what this entire exchange has been about!

Yes, "if". Do you really expect me to be interested enough in your BS to check dates on the incessant quotes you make? What a laugh.

But since YOU brought it up: that paper has ALSO been criticized for its low-credibility theory of how low clouds and a new model of convective atmospheric mixing could (unverified and currently unverifiable) explain discrepancies in model sensitivities.


Yep. 2 papers (2013 and 2015) = 2 new unverifiable climate models that disagree with everyone else's climate models.

You have been reported. Again.

Comment So, eat in courses? (Score 2) 256

I never realized it was weird as a kid, but my grandparents were Italian and they always ate in courses, every single meal. When grammy makes soup, she removes the meat, has a bowl of soup, and then brings the meat out on a plate, then a salad.

Pasta and meatballs? No, pasta, then meatballs, then a salad to finish it off; even if it was just an ordinary thursday night diner.

Every night was 3 courses, and holidays were more like 6 or 7 separate courses.

Comment Re:My money is on.... (Score 1) 86

> The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants

I am fine with that, but they should have to prove THAT in a court of law too. Problem is, war, crime, these are just labels. The moment a government is arresting people, its law court time. That is a fundamental check on the power of government that should be inviolate.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. So what the hell are you ranting about? There is nothing more to be said.

I told you, I will not discuss tweets here on Slashdot. By definition, that's another demonstration of your out-of-context bullshit. Which by now any reasonable person would have to conclude is 100% deliberate misrepresentation. You can talk about lapse rate here all you want, but that wasn't I was referring to on Twitter, mistakenly or not.

If you want to discuss something on Twitter, then do it on Twitter. IN CONTEXT.

You have been reported yet again.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

You still don't understand that your "recent comment" baselessly accusing that recent PAPER of having credibility problems is completely irrelevant?

Since my comment about the paper is what this entire exchange has been about, which YOU started by the way, how could it be irrelevant?

It's so utterly, bizarrely illogical that you would rant for so long about something that you say yourself is irrelevant, I have to say, once again, that you have given me strong reason to suspect you're a dangerous, stalking, harassing nutcase. And by "dangerous" I mean that you appear to me to be seriously unbalanced. GO AWAY.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Again, your baseless hatred of Sherwood et al. is completely irrelevant.

Pure libel. Wrong on both counts. First, the things I say aren't "baseless", and second, I have no "hatred" for Sherwood. I've made no such statement, and you're making false accusations again. That's just not despicable behavior, it's illegal.

Again, you have been reported. GO AWAY.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.