OT: An Appeal by everyone's favourite eco-loon, Greta Thunbe

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:35:27 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:48:09 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 04:35:47 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of
rant.

Lol. Says it all.

Haha! One nutcase vouches for another nutcase's sanity. If only Bill
could see himself and his daft pronouncements as others do. :-D

It's not difficult to understand where people as dim and gullible as Cursitor Doom are coming from. I know exactly what he's thinking - or rather feeling, since organised thought seems to be quite beyond him.

I'm not rude about his numerous short-comings in the hope that he'll do anything to raise his game - I'm just doing it to emphasise that even this group has standards of a sort, and he falls a long way short of them, such as they are.

He's not even the low man on the totem pole here - skybuck flying is worse, and krw is almost as bad - but he doesn't have a lot of other competition.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:29:10 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:07:11 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

but nothing at all about climate change and Greta Thunberg?

Good, it's
best not to comment on subjects beyond your grasp.

Your admiration for Thunberg's intellect merely illustrates the
pronounced deficit in your own. Honestly, a grown man looking up to and
being taken in by a 16 year old schoolgirl! PATHETIC.

The sixteen year-old schoolgirl reiterated the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and spelled out what they meant for her - and anybody else of her age.

Cursitor Doom gets his ideas about climate change from less authoritative sources - essentially denialist propaganda paid for by people who want to keep on making as much money as possible for as long as possible by digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel.

This makes him pathetically gullible, but he's too dim to notice that.

He's also the kind of self-satisfied jerk who feels free to be rude to his intellectual superiors (which does seem to include most of the population).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[bitrex]

On 11/5/19 8:46 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 08:44:36 -0800, jlarkin wrote:

Since this thread is OT, this is fun:

[...]

Unfortunately there's nothing funny about it at all, because this is
where it always ends up if left unchallenged:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCA6ME81RLQ

Cursor Doom doesn't have the wherewithal to effectively "challenge" a 16
y/o girl, much less a Mao Zedong. He seems smart enough to stick to easy
targets but that ain't saying much.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 12:36:17 PM UTC-8, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Lol, someone else can waste their time on her rubbish if they want.

It's not HER that's the problem. Drought, flood,fire, entire ecosystems
scrambled like a shuffled deck of cards...

She is just reminding you what we've heard from the scientists for... decades.
Or, filling you in on important stuff you never knew.

Your reckless disregard will hurt her, and the rest of her generation, and their
offspring... and they ALL know it. Invest in a urine-proof tombstone,
or don't trust your youngsters with the location.

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

-------------------

Until you factor in that fact Bill is high on the ASD spectrum himself.

Uta Frith didn't mention it.

** Citing the "absent expert " is a standard debating cheat.

In this case, Bill is citing himself actually.

So he worthless in every way.

But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

False citing, appeals to higher authority, opinions trotted out as facts and his own lack of perception as disproof of existence.


-----------------------------------------------

FYI to all:

I have a close associate who is VERY autistic, his friends are well aware and told me so recently, since I had kept quiet about it for years.

Nobody wanted to hurt his feelings, not even me, cos we all realised he would take being told badly.

First rule any doctor or expert like the one Bill cited uses when dealing direct with people is never say or do anything to injure your own patient.

The old Hippocratic oath.



..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 4:52:22 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

Until you factor in that fact Bill is high on the ASD spectrum himself.

Uta Frith didn't mention it.

** Citing the "absent expert " is a standard debating cheat.

She is an actual expert, and Phil Allison is at the opposite end of the credibility spectrum

> In this case, Bill is citing himself actually.

More to throw in the bizarre anecdote than with any expectation of convincing anybody.

> So he worthless in every way.

Not every way, but Phil's value metrics are odd.

> But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

Or so Phil likes to think.

> False citing,

Produce an example.

> appeals to higher authority,

That's what citation is - the fact that Phil doesn't take particular authorities as seriously as he should isn't a virtue.

> opinions trotted out as facts

I do make a distinction, even if you can't pay enough attention to notice.

> and his own lack of perception as disproof of existence.

If I've not heard of something, and a google search doesn't find it, I'm inclined to think that it has been imagined. That's how scepticism works.

FYI to all:

I have a close associate who is VERY autistic, his friends are well aware and told me so recently, since I had kept quiet about it for years.

Nobody wanted to hurt his feelings, not even me, cos we all realised he would take being told badly.

First rule any doctor or expert like the one Bill cited uses when dealing direct with people is never say or do anything to injure your own patient.

The old Hippocratic oath.

"The main features of autism are difficulty in social interactions and communication, and restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests."

You'd notice if you were dramatically less sociable than your neighbours and colleagues. Phil's consideration in not telling his colleague what the colleague will certainly know is a patronising idiocy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman is a Fucking Prick wrote:

--------------------------------------

Until you factor in that fact Bill is high on the ASD spectrum himself.

Uta Frith didn't mention it.

** Citing the "absent expert " is a standard debating cheat.

She is an actual expert,

** But absent from here - you Prick.

In this case, Bill is citing himself actually.

More to throw in the bizarre anecdote than with any expectation
of convincing anybody.

** Convinced no-one at all - you Prick.

So he worthless in every way.

Not every way,

** Nope.

But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

False citing,

Produce an example.

" AGW is scientific orthodoxy "

Alludes to an outside reality which is non existent.

appeals to higher authority,

That's what citation is

** Begs the question, if the cited party is part of the topic under debate.

opinions trotted out as facts

I do make a distinction,

** Only rarely.

and his own lack of perception as disproof of existence.

If I've not heard of something,

** Not what I was referring to at all.

FYI to all:

I have a close associate who is VERY autistic, his friends are well aware and told me so recently, since I had kept quiet about it for years.

Nobody wanted to hurt his feelings, not even me, cos we all realised he would take being told badly.

First rule any doctor or expert like the one Bill cited uses when dealing direct with people is never say or do anything to injure your own patient.

The old Hippocratic oath.


You'd notice if you were dramatically less sociable than your
neighbours and colleagues.

** Not true at all.

Phil's consideration in not telling his colleague what the
colleague will certainly know ...

** Massive fallacy in direct conflict with supplied info.

Par for the course with autistic pricks on a mission.

ASD affected people cannot discuss the topic sensibly, while they are
still in denial.




...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 8:02:29 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

False citing,

Produce an example.

" AGW is scientific orthodoxy "

Alludes to an outside reality which is non existent.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

It was published in 2010, and I posted a link to the paper here at the time..

You don't want to believe it, but you'd have trouble getting a counter opinion published.

appeals to higher authority,

That's what citation is

** Begs the question, if the cited party is part of the topic under debate.

Phil does seem to have a particularly bizarre conspiracy theory in mind, where the entire climate science community around the world is cooperating to lie to the whole world.

opinions trotted out as facts

I do make a distinction,

** Only rarely.

Phil's opinion on this subject isn't to be relied on as fact.

and his own lack of perception as disproof of existence.

If I've not heard of something,

** Not what I was referring to at all.

Of course not. This was just unspecific and contentless abuse.

FYI to all:

I have a close associate who is VERY autistic, his friends are well aware and told me so recently, since I had kept quiet about it for years.

Nobody wanted to hurt his feelings, not even me, cos we all realised he would take being told badly.

First rule any doctor or expert like the one Bill cited uses when dealing direct with people is never say or do anything to injure your own patient.

The old Hippocratic oath.


You'd notice if you were dramatically less sociable than your
neighbours and colleagues.

** Not true at all.

It's hard to miss.

Phil's consideration in not telling his colleague what the
colleague will certainly know ...

** Massive fallacy in direct conflict with supplied info.

In direct conflict with what Phil thinks he knows. The information supplied isn't exactly plausible or reliable, which was the point I was making.

Par for the course with autistic pricks on a mission.

ASD affected people cannot discuss the topic sensibly, while they are
still in denial.

They may not be able to talk about it - that's part of being less sociable than your colleagues - but that doesn't mean that they are in denial, or unaware that there's a difference. They may not see it as a problem, and having a discussion about that kind of situation with Phil, and coping with his bizarre ideas, wouldn't be an attractive option.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------

But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

False citing,

Produce an example.

" AGW is scientific orthodoxy "

Alludes to an outside reality which is non existent.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

** No relevance.

That's what citation is

** Begs the question, if the cited party is part of the topic under debate.

Phil does seem ...

** More of Bill's psychobabble, nonsensical drivel.

and his own lack of perception as disproof of existence.

If I've not heard of something,

** Not what I was referring to at all.

Of course not.

** Correct.

You'd notice if you were dramatically less sociable than your
neighbours and colleagues.

** Not true at all.

It's hard to miss.

** Only to some perceptive others, the one concerned lives in denial.

It's not a river BTW.

Phil's consideration in not telling his colleague what the
colleague will certainly know ...

** Massive fallacy in direct conflict with supplied info.

In direct conflict with what Phil thinks he knows.

** Thoroughly in a position to know too.

While Bill has not one tiny fucking clue.

Never stops him bullshitting though .....

Par for the course with autistic pricks on a mission.

ASD affected people cannot discuss the topic sensibly, while they are
still in denial.

They may not be able to talk about it ....

** Not what I wrote.

FYI to all:

Bill is MASSIVELY in denial.

17 years ago, I complained that his postings here were the work of a very autistic person.

He used the same pathetic, irrational dodges back then too.

We had a polite phone conversation a while back.

Confirming my point.


...... Phil

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 8:51:32 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:57:07 -0800, Michael Terrell wrote:

Didn't they get into a huge catfight, and bitch slap each other to
death?

Careful, Michael, some snowflake could easily get 'triggered' by that
remark!

Like the group of anti war protesters a few years ago who announced that they were going to disrupt our Memorial Day service? I was the first to arrive at our Veteran's Park that day. I met two Deputy Sheriffs, who asked if I had heard about the planned protest. I hadn't but I asked them to give the a message when they arrived. "Please remind them that there will be less than a dozen of you to defend them from thousands of Veterans, and thousands of others here to remember the ones who served our country. There are not enough of you to keep them safe it they start trouble." About 45 minutes later, someone tapped me on the shoulder. It was one of the deputies. He was smiling and pointing to the far corner of our Park. The protesters were huddled in a tight group, and their signs were laying face down. "We delivered your message."

Canes, walkers and oxygen tanks can all be used to protect yourself from Snowflakes. I personally had one on his knees a few years ago, begging me to let him go after he tried to steal my cane in a Church parking lot. He was called 'Pretzel Boy', until he moved out of town.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:32:45 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

But debating cheats are all the Bill ever uses.

False citing,

Produce an example.

" AGW is scientific orthodoxy "

Alludes to an outside reality which is non existent.

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

** No relevance.

Did you actually read any of it?

It was written to address exactly the point you are trying to make.

Under-informed people like you go around trying to claim that anthropogenic global warming is some kind of tentative hypothesis.

The reality is that pretty much everybody (97% of the top 300) who knows about the subject are entirely convinced, and the hold-outs aren't holding back for rational reasons.

<snipped the rest of the rest of the bizarre delusions>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:56:37 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

--------------------------
Bill Sloman wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

While she is a sick kid, public sympathy goes her way.


She may have Aspberger's syndrome, but she doesn't look - or act -
like any kind of sick kid. The public image I've seen is remarkably
self-possessed.

Her whole act is a demonstration of her mental health issues.


** Hard to immediately figure how Bill and some others cannot see that - but instead deny what is blindingly obvious. Her voice and facial expressions were bizarre and not just the result of coaching.

Until you factor in that fact Bill is high on the ASD spectrum himself.


ICBA to read the rest.


** Bill's trumpet concertos of fake insight are loopier than ever lately.


..... Phil

I'd put them at their usual level. I don't get why some people buy his failures of insight. A little critical thinking soon shows them to not add up.


NT

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:28:37 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:36:17 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 4 November 2019 13:48:53 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Here's text of Greta Thurnberg's speech to the UN

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit

Let's see Phil Alliosn or NT produce a line by line analysis that picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.

Lol, someone else can waste their time on her rubbish if they want. And Bill's predictable ensuing bs.

She is clearly manipulated by the greenwash movement, but it's just as much a chance for her to make a career out of it. It's not one sided.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isn't any kind of greenwash movement. The point she was making was

immaterial

> NT is blind to any of that.

No, it's just immaterial. It's based on too much foolish nonsense to spend time on.

People will soon tire of her current antics, but if wise she will learn & transition to a more fact (or at least plausible claim) based approach. Whether she has the sense & sanity to do that is open to question.

NT lacks the sense and sanity to notice that her approach is based on very well established facts.

Well, that's a good demo of the gross deficiency of your critical thinking skills.

junk snipped


NT

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:35:27 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:48:09 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 04:35:47 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

She's not remotely crazy, and her address to the UN wasn't any kind of
rant.

Lol. Says it all.

Haha! One nutcase vouches for another nutcase's sanity. If only Bill
could see himself and his daft pronouncements as others do. :-D

He'd be a lot quieter that's for sure

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:34:46 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:39:21 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 4 November 2019 23:17:05 UTC, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:49:04 AM UTC-8, blo...@columbus.rr.com wrote:

... She probably thinks she has special gifts which have elevated her to great prominence, when in reality she is a useful idiot.

Why do YOU care what 'she probably thinks'; that's a cheap attack, a cowardly bit of
character assassination.

I hope that she can properly process this when the day comes that she is spent fuel and is no longer needed and nobody cares about her opinions anymore.

A smile and some encouragement would be a more appropriate attitude. She deserves a
bright future.

No, it takes a good grasp of a subject, determination & focussed work to get a bright future. She shows no trace of the first of those.

NT has this persistent delusion that he has a good grasp of the subjects he pontificates about.

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis of Greta Thurnberg's address to the UN that picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.

His response was "Lol, someone else can waste their time on her rubbish if they want. And Bill's predictable ensuing bs. "

In other words he can't demonstrate that it is rubbish. He makes that kind of claim all the time, and never delivers the supporting arguments that even try to validate it.

and there were have the ensuing bs lol.

Greta's stuff is so intellectually empty that anyone with functional critical thinking skills can see it for what it is. She demonstrates only her naivete & interest in carving herself a career. She is an actor with ability in one role type only. I wish her well as much as anyone, but her green arguments are not worth a thing.


NT

 

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:29:10 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:07:11 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

but nothing at all about climate change and Greta Thunberg? Good,
it's
best not to comment on subjects beyond your grasp.

Your admiration for Thunberg's intellect merely illustrates the
pronounced deficit in your own. Honestly, a grown man looking up to and
being taken in by a 16 year old schoolgirl! PATHETIC.

Win is a true expert at electronics.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:14:50 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 5 November 2019 20:56:37 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:

** Bill's trumpet concertos of fake insight are loopier than ever lately.

I'd put them at their usual level. I don't get why some people buy his failures of insight.

NT's own insight isn't impressive.

> A little critical thinking soon shows them to not add up.

And how would NT know that? The stuff he seems to believe does suggest that his grasp of critical thinking is insecure.

He's pretty much a text-book case of the gullible twit.

Odd that he and Cursitor Doom make such a fetish of "critical thinking" when they clearly can't manage it.

The likeliest explanation is that they think "critical thinking" involves believing the nonsense they choose to believe. What most people call uncritical non-thinking. "Gullible" is a more compact expression of the same idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

--------------------------

Win is a true expert at electronics.

** That facetious - or not?

FYI:

Win failed hopelessly here with simple questions common about issues
with audio amplifiers.

I guess audio is just too complicate for the likes of Win, JL and Phil H.

Too many damn angles to it with to many outside influences to take into account.

When you simply have no experience.

As Dirt Harry famously said, though gritted teeth:

" Man's gotta know his - limitations... "



...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 11:27:39 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 01:34:46 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:39:21 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 4 November 2019 23:17:05 UTC, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:49:04 AM UTC-8, blo...@columbus.rr..com wrote:

... She probably thinks she has special gifts which have elevated her to great prominence, when in reality she is a useful idiot.

Why do YOU care what 'she probably thinks'; that's a cheap attack, a cowardly bit of character assassination.

I hope that she can properly process this when the day comes that she is spent fuel and is no longer needed and nobody cares about her opinions anymore.

A smile and some encouragement would be a more appropriate attitude.. She deserves a bright future.

No, it takes a good grasp of a subject, determination & focussed work to get a bright future. She shows no trace of the first of those.

NT has this persistent delusion that he has a good grasp of the subjects he pontificates about.

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis of Greta Thurnberg's address to the UN that picks out any deviation from scientific orthodoxy.

His response was "Lol, someone else can waste their time on her rubbish if they want. And Bill's predictable ensuing bs. "

In other words he can't demonstrate that it is rubbish. He makes that kind of claim all the time, and never delivers the supporting arguments that even try to validate it.

and there were have the ensuing bs lol.

Easy to say. Harder to demonstrate. Probably impossible for NT to demonstrate, which is why he refuses to try

> Greta's stuff is so intellectually empty that anyone with functional critical thinking skills can see it for what it is. She demonstrates only her naivete & interest in carving herself a career. She is an actor with ability in one role type only. I wish her well as much as anyone, but her green arguments are not worth a thing.

She quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. NT is the intellectually empty vessel here - concentrating on patronising abuse, rather than delivering any substance at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney