Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Originally Posted by FeXL
Just. F'ing. Brilliant.
When all else fails, let's turn the sucka into yet another pointless partisan political piece of crap thread...
I give up. Thx for nothing.
I hear you FeXL... I recently participated in a thread derailment, didn't start out that way and for the most part, despite the clamour by some here the comments were mostly on topic just some people didn't want to hear any dissenting opions.
You clearly and reasonably laid the ground rules from the start. That in and of itself was an egregious error on your part so you were doomed from the start.
It seems some are unwilling to play by rules unless they are the ones to set them in the first place... if anyone else does it is fascism/totalitarianism... "all should follow the rules so long as I agree with them".
This could have/should have been an interesting thread... as it is now it has turned into a piece of dung.
With the rip-roarin' success of the climate change and other politically charged threads, why should this one be any different? To think a new thread is going to quell the conflicts that have been established on this board is a bit naive.
It was doomed from the start because of a comically unscientific comment.......so it become open season for foolishness since it was never about science....
The compassionate, intellectual left replies, "We didn't like the original premise so we decided to trash the place."
Progressivism at it's finest.
Tell ya what, slim. Why don't you mosey over to the closest mirror an' tell me how many fools you see...
In many ways, this thread was an experiment. Just wanted to thank all of you who participated and especially those of you who not only confirmed the hypothesis but threw into sharp relief the anticlimactic but predicted conclusion. This includes the creation of Science II, which, BTW, I won't be visiting.
I'd also like to leave the false gods of AGW out of here
If you'd said something like "let's discuss scientific topics other than climatology, because we've already got threads for that topic" it might've worked. But you started out by making the inflammatory statement that AGW is not science. By any reasonable definition of science, the AGW theory accepted by the vast majority of trained climatologists is science. I understand that you don't like it, and that you don't agree with it, but that's just your opinion. You're not a climatologist, so your opinion is just that.
Now, if you really are interested in discussing other aspects of science in a reasonable way, go ahead and post something to discuss, rather than complaining that someone took your bait.