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

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman Lying Lunatic wrote:


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

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis ...

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time
in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without ...


What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

** FFS you fuckwit asshole, you again snipped and changed the context !!


Snipping Cursitor Doom isn't cheating,

** FFS yet again, misrepresenting an opponent's points is really desperate stuff.

If you got a kick in the backside EVERY time you performed this filthy cheat your bum would look like the black hole of Calcutta.

I recently caught you cheating in exactly this way

** Yawnnnn ....

All complaints MUST be UNDER the words involved.

Otherwise it's simply abuse.

Another debating cheat.

Sloman is a totally workless arguer and fallacious reasoner.

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



> the difference between opinion and evidence,

** To answer Bill's ACTUAL request WOULD of course require producing evidence.

The Witless one's post relied on over-snipping to make an irrelevant point.

Another example of misrepresenting another's case.

IOW a blatant, desperate lie.

FFS The Witless troll is a congenital idiot, proved that here countless times over more than a decade.



....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Witless whit3rd idiot TROLL wrote:

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

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis ...

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without ...

What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

** FFS you fuckwit asshole, you again snipped and changed the context !!

If you got a kick in the backside EVERY time you performed this filthy cheat your bum would look like the black hole of Calcutta.

But I bet it wound not stop a maniac like you.

That would take a lot more.

Cos you are 100% insane.



..... Phil

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 7:35:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:

All complaints MUST be UNDER the words involved.

Otherwise it's simply abuse.

The Witless one's post relied on over-snipping to make an irrelevant point.

Well, by your own stated criteria, because there's no wording of 'an irrelevant point' offered,
you have just posted simple abuse.

Your case against 'simple abuse' of this sort is clearly insincere. Naughty, naughty!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 2:35:35 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

I challenged him to produce a line by line analysis ...

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without ....

What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

** FFS you fuckwit asshole, you again snipped and changed the context !!

Snipping Cursitor Doom isn't cheating,

** FFS yet again, misrepresenting an opponent's points is really desperate stuff.

But you do it all the time.

If you got a kick in the backside EVERY time you performed this filthy cheat your bum would look like the black hole of Calcutta.

I recently caught you cheating in exactly this way

** Yawnnnn ....

All complaints MUST be UNDER the words involved.

Phil invents his own rules.

> Otherwise it's simply abuse.

Entirely justified abuse in this case.

> Another debating cheat.

But we aren't debating. Debates have rules about taking the opponents assertions at face value, which wouldn't work here, since the opponents often have a very poor grasp of reality, coupled with inflated idea of their own competence.

> Sloman is a totally worthless arguer and fallacious reasoner.

Or so Phil likes to think.

the difference between opinion and evidence,

** To answer Bill's ACTUAL request WOULD of course require producing evidence.

Not necessarily. Recognising that Greta Thurnberg was merely reiterating points made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wouldn't need anything more than a link to the IPCC web-site, which is merely pointing to evidence, rather than producing it.

> The Witless one's post relied on over-snipping to make an irrelevant point.

The fact that Cursitor Doom was being evasive does strike me as relevant, and whit3rd had posted enough to make that obvious - it may not have been obvious to Phil whose preconceptions do tend to blind him to the obvious.

Another example of misrepresenting another's case.

IOW a blatant, desperate lie.

Phil does like to make that kind of claim. It's lot easier than posting enough detailed argument to validate it, even when it is possible.

> FFS The Witless troll is a congenital idiot, proved that here countless times over more than a decade.

"Congenital" explicitly claims that he born an idiot. Phil would like it to be true that whit3rd is an idiot now, but if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Making claims about his mental capacity at birth is even sillier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 8:37:20 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

"idleness (an idle mind) is the root of all evil"

or something...

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV - For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with.

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

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

** FFS yet again, misrepresenting an opponent's points is
really desperate stuff.

But you do it all the time.

** Debating cheat, abuse posing as a point.

All complaints MUST be UNDER the words involved.

Phil invents his own rules.

** Same debating cheat as above

Otherwise it's simply abuse.

Entirely justified abuse in this case.

** Same again.

Another debating cheat.

But we aren't debating.

** Correct, Slomanm stopped many days ago.

It's all cheating from him now.

Sloman is a totally worthless arguer and fallacious reasoner.

Or so Phil likes to think.

** Same cheat - abuse posing as a response.

the difference between opinion and evidence,

** To answer Bill's ACTUAL request WOULD of course require producing evidence.

Not necessarily.

** Yes, necessarily.

The Witless one's post relied on over-snipping to make an irrelevant point.

The fact that Cursitor Doom

** Same again - that is a non fact.

Another example of misrepresenting another's case.

IOW a blatant, desperate lie.

Phil does like to make that kind of claim.

** I hate making it, I wish it were not the case.

..

FFS The Witless troll is a congenital idiot, proved that here countless times over more than a decade.

"Congenital" explicitly claims that he born an idiot.

** No-one can achieve such wide ranging, pure idiocy by dint of effort alone.

*Born in talent* has got to be involved.

Making claims about his mental capacity at birth is even sillier.

** So folk do NOT have inherited talents ?

Get a big fight from geneticists on that one, Bill.

Assholes are party born and the rest is the result of sheer practice.

You know the old saying ...

BTW:

Not than I am suggesting you are perfect in any way.




...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 11:06:55 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 10:41:33 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

The Paris Accord had over a hundred nations, all with competent advice,
come together on this issue; it's NOT a conspiracy by some cabal, it's
real.

Nope! It's a giant *con-trick* and YOU have clearly fallen for it.

Cursitor Doom is this group's gullible twit (though John Larkin and NT are in the same league).

The proposition that the Paris Accord was some kind of confidence trick is the sort of bizarre conspiracy theory that only the most gullible of twits could fall for. It's no surprise that Cursitor Doom has endorsed it - he has to be seen to be an utterly gullible twit on every possible occasion to preserve his status as the most gullible twit posting here.

It's not the sort of status that anybody would normally want, but Cursitor Doom is a singularly undistinguished half-wit and can only stand out by being exceptionally half-witted. He's got a depressing amount of competition here, but so far seems to be ahead in the race to bottom.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 11:13:35 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:49:28 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

1) Whatever he asked for, he won't get it from me as I have better things
to do than give him the pointless arguments he craves.

That's the response I was expecting.

Cursitor Doom is happy to make assertions. Following them up is more demanding.

2) Whether it's analysis or evidence is immaterial as he will reject
either out of hand if it contradicts his own, ignorance-based, immutable
viewpoint.

Cursitor Doom has absolute faith in the twaddle his ignorance purveyors serve up to him. He resents the suggestion that he is being conned. Gullible twits are like that.

3) You and Sloman are two of the biggest time-wasting trolls on this
newsgroup and both of you put together aren't worth 2 minutes of my time.

Cursitor Doom wants to concentrate on lapping up the kind of nonsense that makes him feel good. He's a happy gullible twit.

Finding out that he looks like a gullible twit wouldn't make him any happier, despite all the effort he puts into looking like the most gullible twit around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 5:52:58 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

FFS The Witless troll is a congenital idiot, proved that here countless times over more than a decade.

"Congenital" explicitly claims that he born an idiot.

** No-one can achieve such wide ranging, pure idiocy by dint of effort alone.

Phil can perceive idiocy in perfectly reasonable posts.

He's got very creative powers of observation. What he's observing doesn't seem to inhibit those powers at all.

> *Born in talent* has got to be involved.

If you say so.

Making claims about his mental capacity at birth is even sillier.

** So folk do NOT have inherited talents?

But you have to be able to separate nature and nuture to work out whether a talent is learned or inherited.

Since you haven't got any information about how whit3rd performed before he learned to type, your assertions are pure speculation.

> Get a big fight from geneticists on that one, Bill.

Probably not. What seems to get inherited are tiny chunks of contributions to talent, none of which have - on their own - much effect. How they work, and when their effects become visible isn't yet clear, and it's going to take a lot more data (and a great many more genomes) before they'd have anything to fight about.

> Assholes are partly born and the rest is the result of sheer practice.

Congratulations. You've clearly put in a lot of work.

> You know the old saying ...

I know a lot of old sayings. None springs to mind.

BTW:

Not that I am suggesting you are perfect in any way.

That would be an irrational assertion (not that that would discourage you).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 17:37:15 -0800, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

"idleness (an idle mind) is the root of all evil"

or something...

ITYM "The devil makes work for idle hands"?



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 10:41:33 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

The Paris Accord had over a hundred nations, all with competent advice,
come together on this issue; it's NOT a conspiracy by some cabal, it's
real.

Nope! It's a giant *con-trick* and YOU have clearly fallen for it.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:49:28 -0800, whit3rd wrote:

> What a load of crap that is: he asked for analysis, NOT for evidence.

1) Whatever he asked for, he won't get it from me as I have better things
to do than give him the pointless arguments he craves.
2) Whether it's analysis or evidence is immaterial as he will reject
either out of hand if it contradicts his own, ignorance-based, immutable
viewpoint.
3) You and Sloman are two of the biggest time-wasting trolls on this
newsgroup and both of you put together aren't worth 2 minutes of my time.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Friday, 8 November 2019 02:49:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:00:40 AM UTC+11, tabb wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 04:46:23 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:

But being an expert in electronics does not make someone competent in politics.

NT manages to have silly ideas about politics and electronics.

you're actually disputing what I said there? Lol

> The expert in everything doesn't exist, any more than the man who is always wrong, but stupidity and ignorance can be evident over a broad spectrum of subjects.

I would have thought that too obvious to need a mention.

Just more BSSBS

 

On Thursday, 7 November 2019 23:14:46 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby
Phil Allison wrote:

----------------------
FYI:

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

Every expert fails hopelessly in some areas,


** Then he is not what you claimed.



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

Precisely. Win does well when he sticks to electronics.


** Audio amplifiers are "electronics" - simple stuff to.

Win is nasty, smug shit.

So no surprise you feel the need praise him.

Like honour among thieves.



Just a reality check.


** That would be one place you never visit.

We have an assortment of experts here.

** Really, who are they ?

Claiming people can't do what they do successfully on a daily basis
is a bit pointless.


** Especially when you a have no idea what they actually do.

And pour scorn on them, because of that fact.

Cos you are a smug, unthinking asshole.



But being an expert in electronics does not make someone
competent in politics.


** No-one is competent in day to day politics.

It's fundamentally chaotic, like the weather.


FYI:

I nailed what was wrong here two decades ago.

The dominant posters are ugly bullies and egomaniacs.

Creates a toxic culture in which nothing good can ever happen.

Worked in places like that once, but not for long.



.... Phil

funny isn't it

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 12:41:15 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 8 November 2019 02:49:45 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:00:40 AM UTC+11, tabb wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 04:46:23 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
tabby wrote:

But being an expert in electronics does not make someone competent in politics.

NT manages to have silly ideas about politics and electronics.

you're actually disputing what I said there? Lol

Why would you think that? You are no kind of expert in anything.

You do perform the pretentious clown role to perfection, but that doesn't demand any kind of expertise.

The expert in everything doesn't exist, any more than the man who is always wrong, but stupidity and ignorance can be evident over a broad spectrum of subjects.

I would have thought that too obvious to need a mention.

Evidently. You couldn't be closer to a perfect example - you do share the same skin, after all.

> Just more BSSBS

NT does have his private language.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 12:46:08 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, 8 November 2019 02:58:11 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:04:30 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 05:53:21 UTC, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'. It's an important principle.

Of course. Persecuting people for being gay is crass stupidity as well as counterproductive & antisocial.

If Greta's simple message doesn't get through, it's nonsense to Phil,
but that's not on her; he lacks the bandwidth.

Her message contains enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through.

NT likes to claim this, but is unwilling to do the work required to demonstrate it.

correct, I'm also unwilling to do a long list of other completely time wasting things. Unusually I have been mostly willing to waste my time replying to your mentally ill ramblings so far.

An objective observer could imagine that your unwillingness to try to demonstrate a fatuous proposition is more likely to be founded on an appreciation of the obvious fact that you couldn't manage to do it even if you tried.

He may not realise how difficult the job might be, but he's probably well aware that he doesn't do well when he tries to do it.

lol, the mind reading delusion again.

"Probably" doesn't need any mind reading. You haven't got a mind worth reading, but you do have a long history of posting pretentious nonsense.

Here's the message again.

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

Let's see NT drive his fleet of trucks through it.

I see he doesn't get the 'complete waste of time' concept.

I can recognise an evasion when I see it. So can everybody else.

He has declined the offer before, but he may yet work out that pretentious generalisations are the hall-mark of the pretentious clown.

He's in my books as a pretentious clown, and has been for some time. He's getting to be a remarkably predictable pretentious clown, which make him stupid as well.

that honour is clearly all yours. BSSBS strikes again.

Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, 8 November 2019 02:58:11 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:04:30 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 05:53:21 UTC, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-8, Phil Allison wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

Gay rights do make sense.

** Yep - politically correct non sense.

Human rights isn't 'nonsense'. It's an important principle.

Of course. Persecuting people for being gay is crass stupidity as well as counterproductive & antisocial.


If Greta's simple message doesn't get through, it's nonsense to Phil,
but that's not on her; he lacks the bandwidth.

Her message contains enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through.

NT likes to claim this, but is unwilling to do the work required to demonstrate it.

correct, I'm also unwilling to do a long list of other completely time wasting things. Unusually I have been mostly willing to waste my time replying to your mentally ill ramblings so far.


> He may not realise how difficult the job might be, but he's probably well aware that he doesn't do well when he tries to do it.

lol, the mind reading delusion again

Here's the message again.

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

Let's see NT drive his fleet of trucks through it.

I see he doesn't get the 'complete waste of time' concept

He has declined the offer before, but he may yet work out that pretentious generalisations are the hall-mark of the pretentious clown.

He's in my books as a pretentious clown, and has been for some time. He's getting to be a remarkably predictable pretentious clown, which make him stupid as well.

that honour is clearly all yours. BSSBS strikes again.

 

On Friday, 8 November 2019 03:11:10 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:07:22 AM UTC+11, tabb wrote:
On Thursday, 7 November 2019 06:09:00 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:28:08 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2019 03:16:30 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Delusions of mind reading. Classic stuff.

NT has the delusion that he has a mind to read. He's got an image that he wants to present, and that's easy to decode.

Is that a 3rd example of your delusion of mind reading? I'm not sure.

If NT had a mind that worked he wouldn't have bothered posing the question.

When a pretentious clown acts in a predictable way, it doesn't take mind-reading to do the prediction.

NT clearly thinks that he has right to post vague generalisations. When he gets heckled about it, he doesn't seem to understand the content of the criticism, and writes it off as nonsense (which is to say he can't make sense of what is being said, apart form the fact that it's hostile). It's fairly transparent attitude, and you don't need mind-reading skills to decode it..

It's not as if there's any actual content to be read.

He gets very evasive if asked to supply that, and the most economical explanation is that there isn't any content there to be supplied.

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

I wouldn't. It doesn't seem to happen. Dimwits like you and Cursitor Doom do seem to think that they can make that claim, and that doesn't worry me at all.

People have pointed out where I have fallen short at higher levels, and I've been grateful for the correction - search on posts by me containing the word "oops".

You and Cursitor Doom seem to be sea-green in-educatable.

your 'analyses,' for want of a better word, both of me, CD and yourself are the product of your deluded imagination & mental issues.

 

On Saturday, 9 November 2019 01:33:49 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:07:17 -0800, tabbypurr wrote:

It's certainly an explanation that requires no engagement in actual
thinking. No wonder you like it. But the bigger reason is you don't like
people pointing out when your ideas are crassly stupid.

Bill has become a somewhat pitiable, sad and tragic figure clinging on
for dear life to the outer periphery of S.E.D. Go easy on him. ;-)

He can have what he persistently asks for. Until I get bored.

 

On Saturday, 9 November 2019 01:44:52 UTC, Cursitor Doom wrote:

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

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.

Why anyone would want to waste a single second of their time in a futile
attempt to spoon-feed you evidence you would only refute without even
comprehending it is beyond me. Certainly no one who's been posting here
for any length of time and seen your dismissive attitude to anything that
didn't appear in the NYT, WaPo or CNN would!

If he hasn't seen any problem yet with her position it's not worth discussing.