Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yay big government! (Score 1, Offtopic) 256

But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs

Nonsense. The people calling for lower taxes today are right-wingers AND independents... who today make up the largest voting block, at 40%.

Sorry, but Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, et al. have been driving away voters in droves. If the Democrats came even close to beating out Republicans and Independents in the 2014 elections, I'll be amazed.

You can only piss people off for so long, before they fight back. A concept Obama doesn't seem to understand.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim?

You're a ... if you're really a man named Lonny Eachus posing as a woman on the internet.

I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one.

You're strongly implying that Jane isn't Lonny Eachus

Are you SURE that's what I was implying there? I suggest reading what my words actually say again, and in what context. You seem to have had a lot of trouble interpreting words using their plain meanings, and NOT assuming false meanings that you have made up in your head. I feel I can safely say that, since you have demonstrated it about, oh, maybe 100 times now. As a very rough guess.

lying about your own gender is lying.

You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.

If you're actually a woman, then you're not lying about your own gender. If you state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus, then I'll accept that Jane Q. Public isn't Lonny Eachus.

I have absolutely no motivation to make any such statement. Who I am, or why I chose the pseudonym I did, ARE NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS. Get that through your head. I don't owe you a goddamned thing. And you don't have any kind of "right" to make my life miserable until I do what you say.


Comment: Re:So (Score 1) 256

Hell there was a case where police raided a home looking for someone who wasn't even there. In the process tossed a flashbang in a kids crib....then disclaimed all responsibility and said it might even lead to charges against the...PERSON WHO WASN'T THERE!

Thats right, if the police have reason to suspect you of something, they are of the opinion its your fault they are investigating and you are responsible for any harm they cause to anyone else by their own actions.

Comment: Re:UK is not a free country (Score 1) 136

by TheCarp (#47424603) Attached to: UK Gov't Plans To Push "Emergency" Surveillance Laws

> (a) it must be possible to determine whether someone's actions are actively harming another person and (b) that
> unless "privacy violation" equals "active harm", and it doesn't, any privacy violation is allowed.

Except that assumes that the law is always correct. Privacy is, fundamentally, a restriction on the reach of the law; an a necessary and right one. Why, not too long ago privacy was the best defense homosexuals had from persecution.

Society has always been full of people who disagree with the law, and break it to little consequence. Why shouldn't they? The law is just a few rules written by needs serious limits on its reach, more so than we have.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

The third thing I am going to say about this is:

And your claim that using a pseudonym constitutes "lying" is just plain ridiculous. I repeat: pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition. You use one yourself.

The fact that you have repeatedly (and utterly) failed to demonstrate what you have written you are trying to demonstrate, would seem to indicate that your purposes are not actually what you claim them to be.

I have very strong reason to believe that your entire purpose here is simply to attempt to commit character assassination in a place you KNOW will show on Internet searches and elsewhere. There is a name for that.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

Let's be clear about this:

You have repeatedly and publicly accused me of being a pathological liar, and you have more recently accused me of making libelous statements about "you and your colleagues". In order for that to be true, you would have to show at the very least that I knew, or reasonably should have known, that the things I wrote -- not quotes or things other people wrote -- were untrue.

You have not done so. I have made mistakes, but I have not lied and do not lie about this.

Take your false accusations and go away. I mean it. You seem to have a screw loose somewhere and you have been making that a real problem for me. I have no reason to voluntarily put up with your crap. I have responded in self-defense only... and look at how many times you have caused me to do that.

You have been wasting my valuable time, attempting to besmirch my name, and committing other foul deeds. LEAVE. GO AWAY.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

I asked you where I -- *I* as in me -- claimed that something was a lie or fraudulent, where it wasn't actually a lie or fraudulent.

Once again, you have posted a whole slew of things that do not meet these criteria. In order to do that, you would have to SHOW that it wasn't actually a lie or a fraud.

Instead, what you have posted was a bunch of things I -- and other people -- said that you haven't shown to be lies or fraudulent.

In some cases, you even posted as examples cases of me asking you elsewhere to show where I lied. And you hadn't. And if you have a problem with other people I have quoted, you will have to take it up with them. I am not responsible for their statements.

FAIL. You have utterly and completely failed to show that I have made false statements of ANY kind, much less the libelous kind.

Time to go away.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies

Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

Again, my motivation is wanting you to stop baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies while pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender.

Not only is this statement false, if you know anything at all about tort law you should reasonably know it to be false. This would be hilarious if it were not such an alarming public accusation. Even when I was wrong (which was not as often as you imply), my comments were far from "baseless", and I have not libeled you or any of your "colleagues".

Do you even know what libel IS? Evidence strongly suggests not. You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences.

I see no reason to further reply to your ranting. I tire of having had to constantly defend myself against your emotional and irrational tirades.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:

So... you are saying your rather blatant, repeated attempts at character assassination are due to your sense of insult to scientific objectivity? Why do you not see the obvious hypocrisy in this?

You posted your comment as a reply to something that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, which suggests yet again that reason is a lie. You have been stalking my comments for the singular purpose of insulting me and trying to damage my character. The evidence is overwhelming that you are harassing me for personal reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

You have been doing this to the extent that it is damaging my ability to participate here on Slashdot. And you are doing it for reasons you have already admitted were personal (and rather strongly implied it yet again just above). In fact your claims to discredit me have repeatedly stepped far beyond the bounds of any pretense at scientific objectivity or integrity, so scientific integrity logically cannot be the true reason. Not that I think you have been very logical anyway.

The evidence says either the excuse you give above is untrue, or you simply don't understand the motivations of your own actions.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would you think that? I didn't give you any reason to think that was what I was saying. But then, we already know you have a tendency to claim people said things they didn't actually say. I've demonstrated it many times.

Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would I do that? Because you are pestering me about my identity (nobody else is)? Is that justification? I don't think so.

I use the name I use for reasons of my own. Those reasons are none of your damned business. I don't owe you anything.

Further, the use of pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition, and you have been quite deliberately stepping on my ability to try to function normally in this SOCIAL forum, for entirely personal reasons of your own. That is not reasonable behavior.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

And I already explained it to you more than once now that you assigned a meaning of your own to those words that didn't actually exist when I wrote them. That's your problem (and it DOES seem to be a problem), but your failure to understand is not my problem, except to the extent you have been making it my problem. YOUR claim about those words in fact turned out to be a "sexist stereotype"... exactly the thing you accused me of.

You just don't seem to get it, and I am pretty goddamned tired of you trying to make that my problem.

And again you make it clear that your issue with me is personal, and apparently based on some kind of slight that you have wholly imagined, or perhaps invented. Yet again, that is not my problem, except to the extent that you have been making it a problem. And I repeat: it is a genuine cause of concern for me that you don't see that. In my opinion, your behavior has been that of a dangerously obsessed person.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 688

by Jane Q. Public (#47419359) Attached to: When Beliefs and Facts Collide

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John Oâ(TM)Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but âoeforgotâ to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

The fact that you stated it before, buried somewhere in one of your ridiculous rambling posts, does not mean that I saw what was in the links. Really... do you expect me to take the time of day to follow all the links to links that you post?

The fact remains that I hadn't seen the full figure before. So that was a true statement.

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

Since you've just claimed that statement is false, you're putting all your credibility (and Lonny's) on your claim that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available.

You know these statements of yours are simply not true. So why are you posting them? What could be your real reason?

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 388

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Further, I will state that this appears to be a blatant attempt to "besmirch my character", as the saying goes, by making such statements about me online. Why would you do such a thing?

Could it be because your accusations appear publicly on Google and other search engines?

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of?

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.