Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 271 of 304 (349909)
09-18-2006 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Quetzal
09-17-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
I brought the issue up originally here in the moderation forum because it was beyond my comprehension why the admins allowed any of you to get away with it. "Be careful what you wish for" is not a bad adage for you in this instance: if it'd been me, you'd all have been gone.
Again, I apologize for my part in causing your discomfort. I sort of feel sad you didn't feel you could approach me on the issue, instead of going to the mods first. I have always valued your opinion, and would have put my foot down faster (on myself) to return to topic.
If you have advice on how to proceed from here above and beyond what I mentioned in my earlier post to you, I am open to suggestions.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2006 7:05 PM Quetzal has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 272 of 304 (349968)
09-18-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by crashfrog
09-17-2006 11:08 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
This is what I see Crash.
1. Crash Complaint: Holmes distortion in Message 46
Holmes gave his interpretation of the graph information with a link to the graph in a response to RAZD:
Holmes writes:
Here is a plot of CO2 and temp (anomoly) for the last 750K years. As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference. And the earth has rebounded only to rebound again. Is there reason to believe human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution entirely?
Crashes response in Message 48 starts out in an rude tone:
Crash writes:
That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph.
Then he progresses to explain his disagreement and closes in a rude tone.
Crash writes:
I urge you to learn to read a graph. The liberties you have taken with the data (to speak charitably) in your post are a staggering departure from the general level of intellectual output that used to characterize your posts.
In Message 49 Holmes said his error was unintentional:
It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.
The rest concerning that statement is disagreement on reading the graph.
I don't see an intentional distortion.
2. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that the sky is burning. Message 46
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
Holmes writes:
I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't be mindful of human effects on the environment. I am simply trying to argue we must also be mindful of ideological or irrational effects on good science and so problem solving ability. If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole.
Plus I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
3. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that global warming will spell the end of humanity. Message 46
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
Holmes writes:
The facts are that temps fluctuate on the earth. There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 or other modern manmade influences can push us past what we have seen at any other time in earth's history... or at least not for the forseeable future. That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.
Again, I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
4. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay. Message 49
Crash said in Message 48
There is no evidence that any "mechanism" has ever operated in the past that can ameliorate the effects of CO2 levels being 5.5 s.f. above their historical mean. What you urge is absolutely nothing more than "let's wait around for angels to save us."
Holmes said
??? We can see that CO2 levels and temps have fluctuated over earth's history. Thus there are natural mechanisms which control such things. They are not angels, unless you are claiming angels did so in the past.
You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past. Your only argument has been to say that we haven't seen such levels of CO2 before and therefore any effects must be catastrophic and beyond balance. Again I pose the question to you: Is there reason to believe... and I would like evidence... that human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution?
Crash said in Message 52
I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past.
What I see is a debate. I don’t see any implication of assertion.
5. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog promotes the Kyoto treaty, and faults Bush for his failure to implement it. Message 49
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
Holmes writes:
And more importantly what active policies will result in the reductions we may want to see happen? Gore has pushed agendas that I see little merit in. Its sort of like agreeing with Bush that terrorist organizations do pose some sort of threat, but not as dire as he makes out, and even if true does not suggest any of his remedies. While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.
After you went ballistic in Message 52 Holmes explained in Message 55 that is was an example, which is how I read the original comment. I don’t see that a response was needed.
6. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog has asserted that the above graph does not have CO2 data on it. Message 55
Crash in Message 52
I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it).
Holmes’ response in Message 55
??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot". That it is missing the last century's data is irrelevant as I already agree that CO2 levels are higher than in the past, and yes they are spiking.
From what I read, you said the CO2 levels weren’t on it.
quote:
As is obvious from context, when I said "the CO2 levels", I was referring to the CO2 levels we had just been discussing, the ones that aren't on the graph - the current ones.
Apparently it wasn’t obvious and you clarified your statement in Message 60
Crash writes:
But not the current ones. That's what I was saying.
No more was said about it in the following post. I don’t see an obvious intent to be obtuse.
7. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has asserted a direct, 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Message 55
Holmes writes:
I realize you want to keep nitpicking perceived mistatements about CO2 so as to change the subject which is TEMPERATURE. Fluctuating CO2 would mean nothing with the exception of what it means for temperature. That is what I keep trying to pull this back to.
Look at both the graph I initially pointed to, or the one you have presented (in fact let's use that one since you keep pointing to it). What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means. Interestingly temps (and CO2) have been climbing from well before the 1800s. The spike in CO2 is higher than seen before, but we see that CO2 levels have spiked in the past due to nonhuman sources.
Thus temps and CO2 fluctuation are not alien. We have only added a new source for CO2 spiking.
What I see is an explanation. I don’t see any implication that you asserted anything.
8. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has used "definitive, explosive rhetoric". Message 55
Holmes writes:
Have you seen the documents put out by the science organizations who are supportive of GW efforts? They use essentially the same language I do. Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.
Again, I don’t see any implication that you had used definitive, explosive rhetoric. It’s not a comment that you should have focused on to further the discussion.
9. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has predicted the imminent destruction of New York. Message 55
You brought up NY in Message 52
1) That an unknown factor is suppressing the warming effect of elevated CO2 levels, and;
2) an unknown factor, unrelated to the first factor, is actually responsible for the warming, but
3) a completely unknown factor will probably kick in at the last minute and save New York City.
and Holmes addressed your comment in Message 55.
Holmes writes:
This is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric which isn't necessary. My statement is that world climate and its mechanisms are not fully understood, and only recently have we been getting better models. There are factors beyond CO2 levels which effect climate, and more than man's interferences which effect BOTH CO2 and temp.
You are trying to portray "unknown" factor as if I am talking about pink unicorns. I am discussing not well understood factors, some which may not yet be known, that work together to result in climate.
Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon? How is that going to happen exactly? And lets pretend (and that is really discussing pink unicorns) that NY could be wiped out in the immediate future. How is that different than any other natural disaster that hits large cities all the time.
I could be wrong, but to me that statement reads like humor.
10. Crash Complaint: Selective quoting. Holmes quote: If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected. Message 55
quote:
Obviously, that response is a non-sequiter. "Abnormal" in my statement above was obviously meant to refer to anthropogenic, nonnatural warming, not unexpected or unexplainable warming. But once again Holmes immediately leaps to the most idiotic interpretation, so that he can appear to correcting his opponent.
You are assuming it is obvious. I have no way of knowing if it was obvious or not.
10. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay. Message 55
Holmes seems to have stated back to you what he feels you are saying. Why didn’t you just correct his impression calmly?
Holmes writes:
And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want?
I don’t see any misconduct here.
11. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog has asserted that we're doomed, there's no abating the CO2 even if we stop producing it. Message 55
In Message 49 Holmes stated:
This has varied effects. I do not see any being as catastrophic as many portray, but there will certainly be inconveniences as change usually does mean inconvenience as people have to adjust. The more rapid the change, the greater the inconvenience.
Then you asked in Message 52:
Could you point out what catastrophic claims are being made?
Holmes responded in Message 55:
Your hyperbolic rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature. You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes. Heck, you JUST referred to NY needing to be saved.
Granted Holmes didn’t really answer your question, but I don’t see that he implied you had asserted that the planet is doomed.
Again, I see no misconduct. Miscommunication, yes, but no misconduct.
As for the rest of your complaints. I see the same trend. You’re seeing implications that aren’t there from what I can see.
As far as the doomsday talk. What I see is that you two are not actually “listening” to each other. You each are putting each other on opposite poles, but actually seem to be more in line with each other. You’re both focusing on the wrong stuff to further the discussion.
As I said before I can’t address any of the validity of the science, but I don’t see any misconduct in what you brought to my attention.
You both are muddling the topic. Focus. Stick to what is important.
If you still feel that he continually distorts your comments no matter what I've said, stop engaging him in debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2006 11:08 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2006 4:58 PM AdminPD has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 273 of 304 (350043)
09-18-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Quetzal
09-17-2006 7:05 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
You've all been around more than long enough to know that tu quoque is neither a valid defense nor a valid form of argument.
Which is why I haven't employed it. I'm not excusing my behavior; I don't believe I've done anything that needs to be excused. Pointing out how Holmes continually distorts my meaning is not an infraction.
The discussion was not off-topic. When Holmes distorted the topic the topic became his distortions.
"Be careful what you wish for" is not a bad adage for you in this instance: if it'd been me, you'd all have been gone.
Well, it is you. Remember? You're an admin? And you weren't involved in the discussion, as far as I remember. I'm not baiting you to ban me, I'm just curious what stayed your hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Quetzal, posted 09-17-2006 7:05 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AdminJar, posted 09-18-2006 4:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 288 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2006 5:20 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 304 (350047)
09-18-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by crashfrog
09-18-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Well, it is you. Remember? You're an admin? And you weren't involved in the discussion, as far as I remember. I'm not baiting you to ban me, I'm just curious what stayed your hand.
He was not an Admin at the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2006 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2006 4:58 PM AdminJar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 275 of 304 (350048)
09-18-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by AdminPD
09-18-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Did you even read the post? I clearly cited each accusation with examples. Most of your reasoning doesn't make any sense:
Plus I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
You say this a lot, but it's not true - I responded as though he had. Nobody else was taking part in the discussion, so the fact that nobody else came out and said that they interpreted it that way is irrelevant.
and this?
You are assuming it is obvious. I have no way of knowing if it was obvious or not.
Well, maybe you could use your own judgement?
And here, just as an example of how you weren't apparently paying attention:
From what I read, you said the CO2 levels weren’t on it.
I gave the context that showed this wasn't true. Did you read it? The context of the discussion was a graph that didn't have the current atmospheric CO2 levels on it. Obviously, when I said "the CO2 levels", I wasn't referring to all historic CO2 levels, but the ones that we were talking about in context - the current ones. Which aren't on the graph.
You really need to do a better job of seeing through Holmes' subtle distortions of my posts. Go back to my original posts, not how he's quoted them, or what he's implied that I've said.
Miscommunication, yes, but no misconduct.
What, over and over again? How does that happen so repeatedly and predictably to so many people without being deliberate? I'm rarely misunderstood by anybody else, so I'm pretty sure it isn't me.
You simply need to look harder. Look, there's a lot to cover, I know. Holmes' posts are long and the discussions get technical and in-depth. But nobody said being an admin would be easy or fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 12:56 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 7:46 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 304 (350050)
09-18-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by AdminJar
09-18-2006 4:53 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Sorry, didn't realize that was a new thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AdminJar, posted 09-18-2006 4:53 PM AdminJar has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 277 of 304 (350095)
09-18-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by crashfrog
09-18-2006 4:58 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
quote:
Did you even read the post? I clearly cited each accusation with examples.
If you want to avoid confusion in discussions, it is wise to be specific.
I assume you mean message 75, which is the link you provided in Message 257 of this thread. If that is the post you are talking about, then the fact that I restated your complaints in my response (Message 272) should tell you that I did read the post.
I took the time and was courteous enough to provide links to the messages I referred to, I'd appreciate it, if you wish to continue discussing this seriously, if you would do the same since you feel I've missed the obvious.
Complaint by complaint. If I missed something then provide the link and point it out. Stop assuming that what you see is obvious to everyone.
Example: Complaint #2 Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that the sky is burning. I stated that I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had. You disagree. To show me that you had responded to that comment as though he had implied that opponents in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning, you should have provided the link to the message and your quote. Just stating "but it's not true" doesn't accomplish anything.
I spent a lot of time reading through the posts in question in that thread and no not just the quotes. Since you didn't provide links I had to find where the original posts were so that I could read everything in context. I provided quotes that show what I saw.
So if you wish to continue, then be specific; otherwise if you still feel that Holmes continually distorts your comments, stop engaging him in debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2006 4:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2006 1:31 AM AdminPD has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 304 (350164)
09-19-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by AdminPD
09-18-2006 7:46 PM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
To show me that you had responded to that comment as though he had implied that opponents in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning, you should have provided the link to the message and your quote.
It was message 75. You quoted it!
Nobody else participated in that discussion, so what's the relevance of nobody else replying to those statements?
I'm sorry but I simply don't understand. It seems like you're bending over backwards to avoid the obvious, here. It's not just me that recognizes Holmes' techniques of distortion.
So if you wish to continue, then be specific
I was specific, in message 75, which I linked. I substantiated my assertions with direct quotes from Holmes and context, where necessary. If you read all that but still determined that Holmes didn't say what I said he said, what else could I possibly show you? If you're determined to parse every quote in the tortured interpretation that most suits Holmes, then it's fairly obvious that you aren't appreciating the larger context of the entirety of his recent activity.
Yes, I'm asking you to read the entirety of our boring exchanges across several different threads. I'm sure it's going to be quite slow going for you, but keep in mind that I did it, plus I wrote all that, too. Or else simply tell me that you're not interested in doing that; that you don't feel you're obligated to take that kind of investigative approach. I can accept that and if that's the position of the admins, then I'll drop it. I don't intend to post to Holmes anymore (although I've said that before and I'm not good at keeping that promise.)
Just understand that that's how Holmes gets away with it - his exchanges so quickly devolve into boring errata about what was said, when, that he's able to operate under the cover of admin disinterest. Who wants to read a debate about what words mean? It's the only thing worse than actually taking part in such a debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by AdminPD, posted 09-18-2006 7:46 PM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 5:44 AM crashfrog has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 279 of 304 (350186)
09-19-2006 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
09-19-2006 1:31 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
quote:
It was message 75. You quoted it!
Then why did you ask me in Message 275: Did you even read the post? I clearly cited each accusation with examples.
Just in this short encounter you are being inconsistent and confusing.
For example:
quote:
Nobody else participated in that discussion, so what's the relevance of nobody else replying to those statements?
Your complaint from Message 75.
Crash writes:
Implication: Holmes' opponents have asserted that the sky is burning.
The "sky is burning" comment was in Holmes' Message 46 which was a response to RAZD, not you. Why would you feel his comment concerned you? The response from RAZD did not reflect that he felt he was being accused of asserting that the sky was burning. Your response to Message 46, which is Message 48, didn't mention the "sky is burning" comment at all.
I've answered your question now answer mine.
In what message did you respond to that (sky burning) comment as though he had implied that opponents/Crash in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning? Please provide quote and link.
quote:
If you read all that but still determined that Holmes didn't say what I said he said, what else could I possibly show you?
Address what I said in Message 272 and carefully explain how you feel that my understanding of what I read is wrong. Provide quotes and links.
quote:
Yes, I'm asking you to read the entirety of our boring exchanges across several different threads.
You do realize this is a volunteer job, right?
No I won't be reading across several threads. Not so much disinterest as lack of time and the nature of your response to me here. You're being vague and inconsistent. You don't seem willing to clearly show me what you think I've missed in the subject thread.
So if you're not willing to follow this investigation through and help me to see Holmes' misconduct or possibly see what you might have misunderstood in that thread, then I'm not inclined take the time to search elsewhere for misconduct.
Edited by AdminPD, : Better choice of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2006 1:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Silent H, posted 09-19-2006 9:11 AM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 281 by crashfrog, posted 09-19-2006 12:32 PM AdminPD has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 280 of 304 (350227)
09-19-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by AdminPD
09-19-2006 5:44 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
You’re both focusing on the wrong stuff to further the discussion... You both are muddling the topic. Focus. Stick to what is important.
If it makes you feel any better, I recognize your point, which at least two others here have also suggested. I apologize once again, and will strive to stick to the evidence and logic related to the thread, and not get sidetracked into arguing over failures to communicate. In fact that apology goes double for your having to slog through what was painful enough for me to read/live through the first time. I realize if I hadn't wrote it, you wouldn't've had to read it.
No I won't be reading across several threads. Not so much disinterest as lack of time
I had left the summary he made in the first AIT thread alone because I figured most people did not care, or would come to a similar conclusion that I had (and which you pretty much just did).
He is now discussing other threads. I really don't want to pursue this any further, but I have my own impression of what is going on, and do not like seeing my name slandered. That is especially true when the person appears (to me) to be constructing an argument that either admins will agree that I am a bad poster, or they believe (or would believe) I am but don't have the time or care to prove it which in itself is due to my "tactics". In other words no matter what happens or is said, it is proof of my villainy, and perhaps tantamount to an official acknoweldgement of such.
As you noted above regarding the AIT thread in question my original post was to RAZD, and not to him. This is true for a number of recent threads following that one (including the latest AIT thread which Quetzal had complained about). In each case, even where I addressed types of arguments I felt he had used, I addressed the verbiage of the argument and did not tie it to his name. In that way if the position I addressed would be a "distortion" of his position, he would have no reason to complain because I wasn't addressing or claiming to address him... just the argument.
Thus if this is going to be about conduct in other threads then I have something to say because I KNOW I've been going out of my way to avoid conflict. I can document my "case" clearly if need be. But I'd rather not get into it, especially because I don't have the time or interest. I've let it go, and I want to move on.
I realize you have said you will not follow this to other threads, but I am concerned that complaints are going to continue, and conclusions drawn... particularly if I don't answer repeated accusations.
If my efforts to stick to topic are not enough, what more does he want? Why isn't avoiding events which could lead to future problems not enough?
Thank you.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 5:44 AM AdminPD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 281 of 304 (350300)
09-19-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by AdminPD
09-19-2006 5:44 AM


Re: Why Isn't "Inconvenient Truth" Closed?
Just to correct a few more of your misunderstandings.
The "sky is burning" comment was in Holmes' Message 46 which was a response to RAZD, not you. Why would you feel his comment concerned you?
1) If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I didn't accuse Holmes of saying that I said it. Only that he has implied that one of us said it. But nobody did.
2) As stated in the thread, RAZD's post is largely a reference to one of my own.
3) RAZD didn't say "the sky is burning", either. Nobody said that, but Holmes said that it had been said. That's a distortion.
4) In subsequent posts, Holmes repeatedly asserted that I was offering "apocalyptic visions", even though I had done no such thing. Thus, it was obvious that he was implying that I was one of the persons he intended to imply had said that "the sky was burning", even though nobody had said such a thing, except for Holmes.
In what message did you respond to that (sky burning) comment as though he had implied that opponents/Crash in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning? Please provide quote and link.
Message 75, already linked. You read it, apparently. What's the problem here?
Provide quotes and links.
Provided in message 75, which you apparently read. There's no links, but there are quotes. You seemed to find the quotes with no difficulty, even if you didn't do much to investigate their context. How can I possibly link a context to you?
No I won't be reading across several threads. Not so much disinterest as lack of time and the nature of your response to me here. You're being vague and inconsistent.
Not so. There's nothing vague about message 75. You simply haven't adequately responded to it. Reading statements and then simply saying "I don't see how he implied that" is not a response. It's a dodge, because you don't know enough about the thread yet to credibly speak about what Holmes clearly implied at the time.
But, you're not interested in investigating the context in which my interpretation becomes the obvious one. Well, that's fair. How can I possibly respond to that, except to remind you once again that this sort of admin disinterest is exactly what allows Holmes to pull threads off their topics?
You don't seem willing to clearly show me what you think I've missed in the subject thread.
What you've missed is the context. How can I link context? How can I provide context in a few small quotes? By definition, those quotes would be out of context.
You need to read the whole thread, top to bottom, or at least beginning with RAZD's post to which Holmes replied, to see the context in which my statements about Holmes are justified. But you're not willing to do that. That's fine, I can't force you to do it. But can we at least drop the pretense that you've done any sort of due diligence here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 5:44 AM AdminPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 3:19 PM crashfrog has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 304 (350305)
09-19-2006 12:47 PM


PD
I don't understand the warning. When Jar said,
And where exactly did I say that they were not punished?
I assumed that meant that he did mean they were punished and so I had misunderstood him.
I was, in effect, granting my misunderstanding of his position.
So I was just asking him what they were punished for.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by jar, posted 09-19-2006 12:50 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 285 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 1:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 283 of 304 (350307)
09-19-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 12:47 PM


Re: PD
You misunderstand Robin. You have a habit of misrepresenting what people say and then trying to redirect the conversation away from your behavior. If it happened only once or twice, one might think it is simple misunderstanding. When it happens consistently one begins to wonder if it is not intentional.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 1:00 PM jar has not replied
 Message 286 by AdminPD, posted 09-19-2006 1:14 PM jar has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 304 (350309)
09-19-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by jar
09-19-2006 12:50 PM


Re: PD
You have a habit of misrepresenting what people say and then trying to redirect the conversation away from your behavior
I deny that charge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by jar, posted 09-19-2006 12:50 PM jar has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 285 of 304 (350311)
09-19-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 12:47 PM


Re: PD
Now you know differently. Answer the question or let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:47 PM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024