How Many Nobel Prize Winners Support the Anti-Global Warming Crowd?
John
TheLetterK
> Zero!!!
I wasn't aware that there was a Nobel Prize given for achievements in the
field of climatology.
Mike
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
There isn't, of course. This was just a lame attempt at "appeal to
authority". It's what the GW believers are reduced to.
Mike
Snit
no-2D2E71.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:26 PM:
I think the problem here is that few people have the expertise to really
argue one way or the other. When that is the case, it is reasonable to look
at:
* What the experts in the field say:
darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
* Reasoned explanations of processes:
The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
well studied and supported
* Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
* Correlative data:
Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
* Alternate explanations that fit the data:
None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
sun, the Earth's core, etc.
At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> * What the experts in the field say:
> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
Not even close to "universal".
> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
> well studied and supported
OK.
> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
Yes there are.
>
> * Correlative data:
> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.
> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
> sun, the Earth's core, etc.
Well, none that you believe, anyway.
> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
There is *much* reasonable doubt.
Mike
Snit
> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> * What the experts in the field say:
>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>
> Not even close to "universal".
Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
claims of global warming.
>
>> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
>> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
>> well studied and supported
>
> OK.
>
>> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
>> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
>
> Yes there are.
Such as?
>> * Correlative data:
>> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
>
> Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.
Support?
>> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
>> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
>> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
>> sun, the Earth's core, etc.
>
> Well, none that you believe, anyway.
Do you have one?
>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>
> There is *much* reasonable doubt.
Do tell!
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
John
You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
right wing rants. According to an article published in Science magazine in
2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.
The anti-global warming crowd has SO LITTLE DATA that it is not able to
publish even one article in a scientific journal. What to you expect from
the same scientific quacks who argued smoking did not cause lung cancer.
Mike
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
> > In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> * What the experts in the field say:
> >> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
> >
> > Not even close to "universal".
>
> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
> claims of global warming.
Right - exclude people who don't "believe"! How very fair and
open-minded of you!
Mike
Mike
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
> right wing rants.
Or perhaps you are reading "left wing rants".
>According to an article published in Science magazine in
> 2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
> published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
> that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.
Uh huh, just like it was due to "man made pollution" all the times in
the past, right?
Mike
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Zero!!!
>
LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.
You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
little of your own thinking.
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>"Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>
>> Not even close to "universal".
>
>Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>claims of global warming.
LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.
>>
>>> * Reasoned explanations of processes:
>>> The claim that green house gasses cause a green house effect is
>>> well studied and supported
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>> * Examination of how much relevant pollution is being created:
>>> Few people if any disagree that the problem is extreme here
>>
>> Yes there are.
>
>Such as?
>
>>> * Correlative data:
>>> Shows a strong connection with greenhouse gasses and temperature
>>
>> Not really. Many times the rising temp comes first.
>
>Support?
>
>>> * Alternate explanations that fit the data:
>>> None have been offered that I have seen, though people have
>>> tried and failed with claims of the warming coming from the
>>> sun, the Earth's core, etc.
>>
>> Well, none that you believe, anyway.
>
>Do you have one?
>
>>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>>
>> There is *much* reasonable doubt.
>
>Do tell!
--
John
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> Zero!!!
>>
> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
> and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
> what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.
>
> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
> little of your own thinking.
I can't believe how low your IQ is.
Snit
I did not state that only those groups specifically founded with the above
stated idea were the only ones *with* the above stated idea.
I do note, however, that you clearly imply it. How funny. Not a very
strong endorsement for your beliefs. :)
> How very fair and open-minded of you!
To quote John:
-----
You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
right wing rants. According to an article published in Science magazine in
2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.
The anti-global warming crowd has SO LITTLE DATA that it is not able to
publish even one article in a scientific journal. What to you expect from
the same scientific quacks who argued smoking did not cause lung cancer.
-----
So, do you have *any* counter support?
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
Snit
mr7s92lk072eaoe7r...@4ax.com on 6/24/06 10:31 PM:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>
>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>
>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>> claims of global warming.
>
> LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
> insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.
Do you really believe that the only people who do not believe are the ones
in organizations specifically formed to try to debunk the idea? Do you
really believe that *no* pre-existing organizations have doubts?
Great way to weaken your argument! LOL!
In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.
Snit
> In article <tdydnRM7nbHKhgPZ...@adelphia.com>,
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> You have'nt done much to learn about global warming other than read quack
>> right wing rants.
>
> Or perhaps you are reading "left wing rants".
What makes you think that every relevant scientific journal and organization
is part of some vast left wing conspiracy? Or do you have another
explanation that would fit the data as well as your paranoid inferences?
>
>> According to an article published in Science magazine in
>> 2004(a highly respected journal) there IS consensus. Of 935 articles
>> published in scientific journals in the last 10 years ALL supported the view
>> that global warming is primarily due to man made pollution.
>
> Uh huh, just like it was due to "man made pollution" all the times in
> the past, right?
Can you show a more shallow understanding of the conversation? I cannot
imagine how, but I am hoping you continue to amuse me with your attempts.
Mayor of R'lyeh
to bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> Zero!!!
>>>
>> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in 1895
>> and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well. Guess
>> what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right today.
>>
>> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and a
>> little of your own thinking.
>
>I can't believe how low your IQ is.
>
Unable to refute my facts, John resorts to personal attacks.
John
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:33:42 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> chose
>>> to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Zero!!!
>>>>
>>> LOL! That's the exact same amount that supported the skeptics in
>>> 1895 and 1938 when global warming was going to kill us all as well.
>>> Guess what? The skeptics were right both times! And they're right
>>> today.
>>>
>>> You might want to do a little less blind appealing to authority and
>>> a little of your own thinking.
>>
>> I can't believe how low your IQ is.
>>
>
> Unable to refute my facts, John resorts to personal attacks.
I can't refute "facts" if none are provided.
ZnU
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
Appeal to authority is only fallacious when the authority really isn't:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a
legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not
qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will
be fallacious."
Pointing to what climate scientists say about climate change is not a
logical fallacy.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
ZnU
Mike <n...@where.man> wrote:
Because it's impossible, of course, that two causes could have similar
effects, or that experts in a field might be able to tell which effect
is at work in any given case.
This is why murders are always impossible to distinguish from natural
deaths, and are never solved.
Timberwoof
wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.06.25....@none.net>,
No...
But the bit about the lack of consensus thinking among climatologists, put
forward by GW naysayers, is an appeal to journalists. They and politicians seem
to be the only ones saying there's a controversy.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Playing 'I don't see' doesn't make them go away.
TheLetterK
> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>
>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>
>> Not even close to "universal".
>
> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
> claims of global warming.
Does this mean that you will exclude groups founded on the idea of trying
to prove claims of global warming? What will you use to support your
arguments then?
Snit
pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 9:01 AM:
I believe that would be fair. Groups that are founded specifically to
support or deny the idea are, by their nature, going to be unlikely to look
at contrary data.
> What will you use to support your arguments then?
As far as I know, every relevant pre-existing group or group that has come
together to examine the situation but not shown a strong bias either way.
Do you have any counter examples?
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <n...@none.net> stated in post
> pan.2006.06.25....@none.net on 6/25/06 9:01 AM:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>>
>>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>>
>>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>>> claims of global warming.
>>
>> Does this mean that you will exclude groups founded on the idea of trying
>> to prove claims of global warming?
>
> I believe that would be fair. Groups that are founded specifically to
> support or deny the idea are, by their nature, going to be unlikely to look
> at contrary data.
>
>> What will you use to support your arguments then?
>
> As far as I know, every relevant pre-existing group or group that has come
> together to examine the situation but not shown a strong bias either way.
Then I think you need to reexamine the situation. If you think scientists
are unbiased, then you really need to get out more often. The scientific
method may be unbiased, but the people interpreting the results *always*
apply some sort of bias. Among scientists, there also seems to be a
tendency towards self-aggrandizement. Any time there's a threat that could
cause a problem, scientists studying the problem are quick to
overemphasize it. If it's not climatologists going on about global
warming, it's astronomers going on about near earth asteroids. If it's not
astronomers going on about near earth asteroids, it's nuclear physicists
going on about nuclear weapon proliferation. If not that, then it's
disease researchers freaking out about potential superbugs. Etc, etc.
I think it's a result of federal research money being distributed, in
part, based on the level of threat perceived by the public from an issue.
If climatologists make global warming out to be a major threat, then a lot
more money gets spent researching the 'problem'. That's not to say it's
some massive conspiracy to get research funds--it's a universal tendency
towards enlightened self-interest on the part of scientists depending on
the money. That's not to say that they're out and out lying about the
results, but rather that their *conclusions* are biased in favor of their
own situation.
When dealing with something like, say, how galaxies form, do you often
hear scientists talk about certainties? I don't know about you, but most
of the ones I've heard seem to live in the realm of probabilities and
likelihood (not that this is a bad thing). But when we talk about
something like global warming, they suddenly become damn sure about the
cause. Why?
NRen2k5
What I can't personally say for certain is if there's anything we can do
to slow the global warming - it may even be *mostly* natural rather than
caused by pollution.
What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
its *effects*.
TheLetterK
I don't think there's anyone denying that global warming is occurring, and
that the effects should be prepared for. What is being argued is the cause
of global warming (I happen to think it's a natural cycle, but others this
it's caused by human-derived greenhouse gas emissions).
And don't characterize all people who disagree with human-instigated
global warming as 'Bushies'. I can't stand Bush, and certainly wouldn't
vote for him. Of course, the Democrats are just as bad.
Snit
I do not believe anyone has claimed scientists hold no bias. If you are
trying to insinuate I have stated so then you are pushing a straw man. What
I have stated is that a group built to not just examine a phenomena but
built with a institutionalized goal of supporting or debunking a claim is
not likely to look at contrary information with an open mind.
In other organizations there are, undoubtedly, people with biases one way or
the other. When *all* relevant pre-existing organizations come to the same
conclusion, however, then it makes sense to assume there is a likelihood the
objective data leans that way - unless you can show why their is a global
conspiracy to push these folks in one direction.
> The scientific method may be unbiased, but the people interpreting the results
> *always* apply some sort of bias. Among scientists, there also seems to be a
> tendency towards self-aggrandizement. Any time there's a threat that could
> cause a problem, scientists studying the problem are quick to overemphasize
> it. If it's not climatologists going on about global warming, it's astronomers
> going on about near earth asteroids.
From what I have seen the *media* pushed the threat of near earth asteroids
while most relevant scientists talk about how the risk is not great.
> If it's not astronomers going on about near earth asteroids, it's nuclear
> physicists going on about nuclear weapon proliferation.
Do you not see nuclear weapons spreading into many hands as a bad thing?
> If not that, then it's disease researchers freaking out about potential
> superbugs. Etc, etc.
Again, I would say the media is more at fault here. Look at the bird flu
scare now... how many scientists are telling people to run to the hills?
>
> I think it's a result of federal research money being distributed, in
> part, based on the level of threat perceived by the public from an issue.
The groups are not just from the US, though presumably such a weakness could
be wide-spread.
> If climatologists make global warming out to be a major threat, then a lot
> more money gets spent researching the 'problem'. That's not to say it's
> some massive conspiracy to get research funds--it's a universal tendency
> towards enlightened self-interest on the part of scientists depending on
> the money. That's not to say that they're out and out lying about the
> results, but rather that their *conclusions* are biased in favor of their
> own situation.
A respected group coming out against the conclusion of all others would get
recognition... and funding.
> When dealing with something like, say, how galaxies form, do you often
> hear scientists talk about certainties? I don't know about you, but most
> of the ones I've heard seem to live in the realm of probabilities and
> likelihood (not that this is a bad thing). But when we talk about
> something like global warming, they suddenly become damn sure about the
> cause. Why?
The evidence is pretty overwhelming... but with that said there is
disagreement over the extend of the problem and many of the details.
>> Do you have any counter examples?
Snit
aizng.211$sM4....@weber.videotron.net on 6/25/06 9:59 AM:
Unlikely and contrary to most relevant expert opinions... but I cannot prove
otherwise.
>
> What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
> out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
> anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
> its *effects*.
That I will agree with.
TheLetterK
It's *very* possible, given the historical temperature record. Most
climatologists tend to ignore geological evidence of temperature shifts in
the distant past, many of which were of greater magnitude than what we are
currently experiencing. It's similar to how Windows advocates seem unable
to effectively understand the position of Mac advocates, and vice versa.
> and contrary to most relevant expert opinions...
Purely an argument from authority.
Snit
>>>> At this point there is no reasonable doubt that the dangers of global
>>>> pollution to the environment, ecology, and - yes - climate are real.
>>>
>>> What I can't personally say for certain is if there's anything we can do
>>> to slow the global warming - it may even be *mostly* natural rather than
>>> caused by pollution.
>>
>> Unlikely
>
> It's *very* possible, given the historical temperature record. Most
> climatologists tend to ignore geological evidence of temperature shifts in
> the distant past, many of which were of greater magnitude than what we are
> currently experiencing. It's similar to how Windows advocates seem unable
> to effectively understand the position of Mac advocates, and vice versa.
Please support your contention that this data is being ignored.
>> and contrary to most relevant expert opinions...
>
> Purely an argument from authority.
>
>> but I cannot prove otherwise.
>>>
>>> What I feel is most important is the Bushies need to pull their heads
>>> out of their asses and realize that it IS a problem, and whether or not
>>> anything can be done about it, there needs to be some preparation for
>>> its *effects*.
>>
>> That I will agree with.
Lars Träger
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:00:02 -0700, John wrote:
>
> > Zero!!!
>
> I wasn't aware that there was a Nobel Prize given for achievements in the
> field of climatology.
No, but there are for for Chemistry and Physics. HTH.
--
Lars T.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>"Mayor of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> stated in post
>mr7s92lk072eaoe7r...@4ax.com on 6/24/06 10:31 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:04:48 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> "Mike" <n...@where.man> stated in post
>>> no-B30ED1.00...@news.supernews.com on 6/24/06 9:57 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C0C363FB.52D18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
>>>> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * What the experts in the field say:
>>>>> darn near universally they agree global warming is a threat
>>>>
>>>> Not even close to "universal".
>>>
>>> Actually it is pretty close: heck, can you point to one relevant
>>> organization that has not put out a statement in support of the idea?
>>> Please exclude organizations founded with the idea of trying to debunk the
>>> claims of global warming.
>>
>> LOL! No wonder the global warming fundamentalists are so sure. They
>> insist on not hearing from nonbelievers and apostates.
>
>Do you really believe that the only people who do not believe are the ones
>in organizations specifically formed to try to debunk the idea? Do you
>really believe that *no* pre-existing organizations have doubts?
>
>Great way to weaken your argument! LOL!
So you actually think that the only 'valid' voices are from groups
formed for reasons other than to voice an opinion on a certain topic?
How utterly absurd. Of course that also invalidates many of the global
warming fundamentalist groups like the IPCC.
>
>In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
>pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
>As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.
Before there were people not one single person expressed any doubt
about catastrophic, manmade global warming. Therefore 100% of humans
agree that its happening...according to your logic anyway.
Snit
I think that when groups are formed to push a specific agenda it makes sense
to take extra-caution at examining their message, at the very least. Since
there are so many groups around the globe that have looked at global warming
there is no reason to say my stipulation is overly strict. If there were
not so many organizations perhaps we could not take such strict care.
>> In any case, seems there is pretty strong agreement that not a single
>> pre-existing relevant organization doubts the existence of global warming.
>> As I said: pretty darn universal agreement.
>
> Before there were people not one single person expressed any doubt
> about catastrophic, manmade global warming. Therefore 100% of humans
> agree that its happening...according to your logic anyway.
Incorrect. And silly.
I am saying that as far as I know every single organization that does not
have an overt bias and open and specific agenda has come to the same
conclusion. My criteria for determining this agenda is easy - it is based
on their own claims: if a group claims to have an agenda I take their word
for it. This does not imply other groups do *not* have an agenda, but it is
absurd to assume *all* such groups have the same agenda - and as far as I
know they all come to the same conclusion.
Nothing at all like your straw man.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Actually its exactly like my statement. What you keep forgetting is
there was simply no reason to form a group opposing global warming
before it was an issue.
Snit
Before it was an issue there were many groups that looked at climate. Many.
ZnU
But pre-existing groups could have decided to argue against it once it
became an issue. The same way e.g. the National Academy of Sciences,
which bas been around for 143 years, decided to take a public stand on
the existence of global warming.
The only pre-existing groups which took the opposite stance, as far as I
know, are political groups or industry groups which have a stake in
convincing people global warming isn't happening, or at least isn't
their fault, even if it is.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Something you need to keep in mind is that there have been many
DOOM!sayers throughout the years. They've come from the religious
camp, the scientific camp, the just plain out of left field camp, etc.
They've predicted DOOM! in almost every way imaginable. But they have
one thing in common. In every single instance the people who said they
were full of crap were right. The 'climate change is going to kill us
all!' people were wrong in 1895; they were wrong in 1938 and they were
wrong in 1970. There's no rational reason to believe that they're
right now. These are the same people who are only slightly less able
to tell me if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a
Magic 8 Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather
forecast for the year 2100.
Edwin
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
contradictions in their predictions.
The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> contradictions in their predictions.
I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
--
Sandman[.net]
Mayor of R'lyeh
Which really means nothing. They still have the commonality of being
wrong. That's the basis for the grouping, not a claim that they're the
same person.
> So every person, who ever
>predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>contradictions in their predictions.
The basis for the grouping is the fact that they've all been wrong.
That makes it valid.
>
>The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
>1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
> The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.
We could say the same thing about a lot of events. Its the difference
between worrying about what could happen as opposed to worrying about
what's likely to happen. As the history of DOOM!saying shows us actual
DOOM! is not very likely.
Snit
>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
>> the same group of people ever since 1895.
>
> Which really means nothing. They still have the commonality of being
> wrong. That's the basis for the grouping, not a claim that they're the
> same person.
The flaw is you have decided one group is wrong because other groups you
place with it you believe were wrong. Then you claim you grouped them for
being wrong.
Do you see the circular nature of your grouping?
>
>> So every person, who ever
>> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>> contradictions in their predictions.
>
> The basis for the grouping is the fact that they've all been wrong.
> That makes it valid.
But your "evidence" that at least some in the group are wrong is that they
are in the group... again, you are arguing in circles.
>> The other flaw is to think because something that was predicted in
>> 1895, or 1938, or whenever, hasn't happened yet, that it won't happen.
>> The type of processes involved take a lot of time to produce results.
>
> We could say the same thing about a lot of events. Its the difference
> between worrying about what could happen as opposed to worrying about
> what's likely to happen. As the history of DOOM!saying shows us actual
> DOOM! is not very likely.
There have been many disasters that *have* been predicted, if not in time,
in the fact they were possible. This includes pollution in cities, natural
disasters, man-made fires, terrorist attacks, etc.
Snit
mr-29A65C.21...@individual.net on 6/26/06 12:18 PM:
How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?
Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
used by professionals as well?
LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
defend your silly position.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being a pro web design tool, is not used by just beginners
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Lars Träger
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:22:21 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> chose to
> > bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> > Something you need to keep in mind is that there have been many
> > DOOM!sayers throughout the years. They've come from the religious
> > camp, the scientific camp, the just plain out of left field camp, etc.
> > They've predicted DOOM! in almost every way imaginable. But they have
> > one thing in common. In every single instance the people who said they
> > were full of crap were right. The 'climate change is going to kill us
> > all!' people were wrong in 1895; they were wrong in 1938 and they were
> > wrong in 1970. There's no rational reason to believe that they're
> > right now. These are the same people who are only slightly less able
> > to tell me if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a
> > Magic 8 Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather
> > forecast for the year 2100.
>
> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> contradictions in their predictions.
However the people who claim that there IS NO problem always come from
the same group.
--
Lars T.
John
You're low IQ is astounding.
John
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-29A65C.21...@individual.net on 6/26/06 12:18 PM:
>
>> In article <1151349089.3...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's
>>> not the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person,
>>> who ever predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present
>>> day, should not all be lumped together. Please remember that when
>>> you point out contradictions in their predictions.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this
>> moment of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you
>> to this post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present
>> and use their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>
> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call
> "beginners"? Does it not occur to you that the number one
> professional web design tool is used by professionals as well?
>
> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
> defend your silly position.
What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is the
professionals tool of choice.
Snit
ObKdnWGPL520-j3Z...@adelphia.com on 6/26/06 4:00 PM:
>> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
>> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call
>> "beginners"? Does it not occur to you that the number one
>> professional web design tool is used by professionals as well?
>>
>> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
>> defend your silly position.
>
> What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is the
> professionals tool of choice.
Sandman has repeatedly made the claim.
Post: <mr-5D24FB.11...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Have you ever taught a Dreamweaver class?
Sandman: I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
-----
Post: <mr-0B91D2.20...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Dreamweaver is the highest rated *professional* web design tool.
Sandman: And it's still a wysiwyg tool, used mainly by beginners that
doesn't understand the principles of making a web site.
-----
Post: <mr-5D664C.08...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know, like how
you claimed Dreamweaver is.
Sandman: Because it is.
-----
And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I believe,
Carroll offered his support as well. Between the three of them they could
not scrape enough sense together to borrow a clue.
John
Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On both Mac
and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and Steve should
know better.
Steve Carroll
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
And you should know better than to believe Snit... as should anyone that
has read more than one of his posts. I never said a word about
Dreamweaver.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Mayor of R'lyeh
Unable to counter of my arguments with facts, John resorts to childish
namecalling.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Träger) chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
The group of people who are correct.
rock
You are being too kind by not pointing out that anyone who talks about
low IQs should at least know the difference between "YOU ARE" and "YOUR."
Clearly, john is an idiot.
How could anyone so clueless obtain a Mac? Does Apple donate computers
to asylums?
Snit
Tim and Steve will say darn near *anything* in order to further their
trolling and flaming of me. Look at the "conversation" Steve and I have
recently had about his lies about me. Steve has told the same lie about me
10x a day on average for close to 4 months. Recently Tim has just been
following me around trying to defend Sandman - including by making an ass
out of himself and trying to join Sandman in belittling teachers of
Dreamweaver. Then again, Sandman and Tim claim a trained monkey could teach
the program yet neither has given any reason to think they would ever be
able to. :)
Snit
noone-2056AC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/26/06 9:06 PM:
>>>> What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It
>>>> is the professionals tool of choice.
>>>
>>> Sandman has repeatedly made the claim.
<SNIP />
>>> And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
>>> believe, Carroll offered his support as well. Between the three of
>>> them they could not scrape enough sense together to borrow a clue.
>>
>>
>> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On both Mac
>> and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and Steve should
>> know better.
>
> And you should know better than to believe Snit... as should anyone that
> has read more than one of his posts. I never said a word about
> Dreamweaver.
For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman. This is
more fully discussed here: <http://snipurl.com/sckg>.
Perhaps Steve wants people to believe that his 1200+ dishonest posts in
defense of himself and Sandman were not posted to show any form of support.
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
ZnU
1) It hasn't been the same people since 1895, Mayor.
2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
previously.
3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.
> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
> the year 2100.
Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
a year?"
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
> >> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
> >> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
> >> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
> >> contradictions in their predictions.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
> > of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
> > post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
> > their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>
> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?
It's never happened. I correctly stated that it was for beginners.
> Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
> used by professionals as well?
Sure.
> LOL... no, it does not. You will make an ass of yourself by trying to
> defend your silly position.
It's your silly position, and I have no interest at all in defending
it for you.
Michael Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [ ] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [X] Thread hijacking
7 [ ] Projection
8 [X] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [X] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Thread hijacking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a troll has issues with a specific person (or several), the troll
will be inclined to bring up this issue whenever it is humanly
possible, even if it means to enter a totally unrelated thread to
post a lengthy post about why poster X is stupid as a reply to
something that had nothing to do with X at all. A very good example
of that is in this post [1] where Michael hijacks a thread just
because the concept of sex was mentioned and that gave him the
opportunity to once again mentioned a totally unrelated sex-based
issue he is having with Steve Carroll.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b4775197aa7
0e598>
8. Unsubstantiated accusations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A troll needs to accuse people of all sort of things, and since
substantiating accusations is time consuming, the troll is likely to
accuse people without substantiation. This is of course closely
related to obfuscation, since most of the time when the troll
actually does offer substantiation, it's based on the trolls own
obfuscation.
13. Lying
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obfuscating is the act of twisting words and meanings around so they
mean something else than what they were intended for. Lying is making
false statements. Both are untrue, but they differ in execution.
A troll often has no option other than to lie in order to further his
agenda. Especially when he's lost all arguments.
A good example of this is when Edwin quoted Sandman saying something
[1], using quotation marks. Problem was, that this wasn't something
Sandman had ever said. Or when Michael listed five outright lies
about Sandman [2].
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/dcdac1dd28f
153bf>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c410d8e2a3d
60683>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design.
...of all the wysiwyg tools available.
Agreed.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
IF you had followed any of the threads where this was discussed, you would see
that snit has once again stated something that isn't true. I've not commented on
the program Dreamweaver. I have limited my comments on the shitty web designs of
snit.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Mayor of R'lyeh
You guys keep repeating that like its significant. The thing that ties
them together is the fact that they're predicting DOOM!. DOOM! simply
doesn't happen very often. It hasn't happened at all since man has
been around. Some events have been locally devastating and before
modern means of travel and communication it must have seemed like the
world ended to the people involved. But that's hardly the same level
as what's constantly being predicted by the 100% wrong DOOM!sayers.
>2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
> previously.
And its still far from complete. That's one of the things that amuses
me. If these clowns get cornered they will admit they don't understand
how the climate works. However they still insist that their models
work.
Even so it doesn't take much imagination to hear the guys in 1938 say
that to skeptics who point out the 1895 failure or to the 1970
skeptics who point out the 1895 and 1938 failure. It, likewise, isn't
hard to imagine the 2100 DOOM!sayers making the same point to their
skeptics when they point out the 1895, 1938, 1970 and 1985 failures.
And it grows as it goes. At some point intelligent people say 'Fool me
once and all that'.
>3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
> outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.
Iraq is going better than CBS and the New York Times will ever tell
you. Like that upbeat soldier told Matt Lauer 'If I got all my news
about Iraq from the newspapers I'd be depressed too.' It helps to know
a bunch of people who are actually over there, something that I doubt
many liberals do.
>
>> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
>> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
>> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
>> the year 2100.
>
>Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
>like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
>casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
>win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
>round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
>a year?"
Actrually what I'm saying is that these guys don't know as much as
they act like they do and it shows in their abilities.
Snit
> In article <C0C58D4B.5310E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>>> There's couple of serious flaws in your arguments, Mayor. It's not
>>>> the same group of people ever since 1895. So every person, who ever
>>>> predicted a global catastrophe, from 1895 to the present day, should
>>>> not all be lumped together. Please remember that when you point out
>>>> contradictions in their predictions.
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more, and I want to give you an eloge for this moment
>>> of clarity, and I hope it's ok for you if I were to refer you to this
>>> post when you lump "maccies" together from past and present and use
>>> their statements and claims against a single mac advocate.
>>
>> How about when you ignorantly lump all people who use the number one
>> professional web design tool (Dreamweaver) into what you call "beginners"?
>
> It's never happened.
In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
and
> Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know,
> like how you claimed Dreamweaver is.
Because it is.
Once again, Sandman, the Google record show you have repeatedly grouped all
people who use the number one professional web design tool into what you
call "beginners". That is an amazingly ignorant position for you to take,
especially considering that you claim to be a web design pro.
You even repeat your BS below:
> I correctly stated that it was for beginners.
See.
>
>> Does it not occur to you that the number one professional web design tool is
>> used by professionals as well?
>
> Sure.
Yet conversely you will not admit that when you claimed otherwise above you
were wrong - and showing your ignorance of the web design industry. As
noted by many: you are a lying troll.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > It's never happened.
>
> In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
>
> I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
As opposed to "It's used only by beginners".
iDvd is a DVD mastering tool for beginners, but I bet it's not only
used by beginners.
<snip rest of the Snit Circus>
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-D1CFDB.05...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
2:34 AM:
Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website designer.
-----
Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
-----
And, perhaps just as telling, the text you run from:
-----
Note: no comment from Tim Adams: he has not been able to figure out that
when he belittles my skills in an area he has shown he has far lower
skills in that does not speak well of him. Funny, eh - even Tim
realizes a trained monkey could do a better job then he could.
In reality, and to pull this discussion from the silly circus Tim wants
it to go to, the reality is it takes a great deal of skill to be a good
teacher. Good teaching skills are, in fact, *more* important than
having good skills with the product you are teaching (though, of course,
that is important, too). As an example, I used to be one of two
Dreamweaver teachers at another institute: I *certainly* did not have
the web design experience or knowledge of the other teacher; he was a
full time web designer and, from what I have gathered, was quite good at
it. While my skills are passable, I am certainly not in that league.
Several students took both his and my class and in each case I know of
they claimed to learn far, far more in my class than in his. Looking at
the products our students produced made it clear my students achieved a
higher level of understanding. From what the other instructor said I
also rated better in student evaluations.
Many who do not teach are ignorant of the profession and feel a "trained
monkey" could do it. In CSMA, for example, Sandman and Tim Adams have
made that very claim while Steve Carroll has stated that he does not
even consider my job - that of a teacher / instructor - to be a "real
job". Their ignorance on this likely cannot be cured in a Usenet room.
-----
Funny how quickly both Tim Adams and Steve Carroll run from their support of
Sandman's trolling. Just like cockroaches when the light is turned on. :)
Snit
> In article <C0C67E7A.531E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>> It's never happened.
>>
>> In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
>>
>> I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
>
> As opposed to "It's used only by beginners".
You mean like you stated here:
Post: <mr-5D664C.08...@individual.net>
-----
Snit: Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know,
like how you claimed Dreamweaver is.
Sandman: Because it is.
-----
Funny how you snipped that (and so much else from the post you are running
from: <http://snipurl.com/sd49>). LOL! First Carroll runs from his support
of you, then Adams... and now even you want to run from your support of you.
Too funny!
Then to make matters worse you claimed that a whole class of programs - a
class that includes Dreamweaver - is more commonly used than Dreamweaver.
Did it take you all day to come up with a response so pathetic?
And below you attempt to obfuscate... gee, you snip, run, and obfuscate...
and lie... care to look at your "objective trolling criteria"? LOL!
> iDvd is a DVD mastering tool for beginners, but I bet it's not only
> used by beginners.
--
Snit
Run, Sandman, run!
LOL!
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing about
the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website designer' should
be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the program.
> -----
>
> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> -----
> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
Which doesn't speak about the program, just the ability to _teach_ the program.
Too bad your reading comprehension is so bad.
~further trolling by michael glasser snipped.
Snit
7:28 AM:
>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>> -----
>> Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
>> teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website designer.
>
> Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing
> about the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website
> designer' should be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the program.
Doesn't all that back pedaling tire your legs?
>> -----
>>
>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>> -----
>> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
>
> Which doesn't speak about the program, just the ability to _teach_ the
> program.
> Too bad your reading comprehension is so bad.
What massive leg muscles you have! LOL!
>
> ~further trolling by michael glasser snipped.
Wow! Tim runs again. How unpredictable! LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-D5C6B1.15...@individual.net on 6/27/06 6:24 AM:
>
> > In article <C0C67E7A.531E6%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >>> It's never happened.
> >>
> >> In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
> >>
> >> I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
> >
> > As opposed to "It's used only by beginners".
>
> You mean like you stated here:
>
> Post: <mr-5D664C.08...@individual.net>
> -----
> Snit: Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know,
> like how you claimed Dreamweaver is.
> Sandman: Because it is.
> -----
>
> Funny how you snipped that (and so much else from the post you are running
> from: <http://snipurl.com/sd49>). LOL! First Carroll runs from his support
> of you
... in a glue induced delusion you had? Yes, I know. It's obvious you
think your delusions are real, but... well, they aren't. Sorry to be the
one to break it to you;)
Steve Carroll
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Iraq is going better than CBS and the New York Times will ever tell
> you.
In spite of the help given the terrorists by the NYT.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-2056AC....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/26/06 9:06 PM:
>
> >>>> What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It
> >>>> is the professionals tool of choice.
> >>>
> >>> Sandman has repeatedly made the claim.
>
> <SNIP />
>
> >>> And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
> >>> believe, Carroll offered his support as well. Between the three of
> >>> them they could not scrape enough sense together to borrow a clue.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On both
> >> Mac
> >> and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and Steve
> >> should
> >> know better.
> >
> > And you should know better than to believe Snit... as should anyone that
> > has read more than one of his posts. I never said a word about
> > Dreamweaver.
>
> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
Snit... just a bunch or irrelevant babbling that had nothing to do with
what John asked. Why'd you lie to John? Did you think he wouldn't notice?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-CCEC76.10...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 7:28 AM:
>
> >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >> -----
> >> Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
> >> teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website
> >> designer.
> >
> > Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing
> > about the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website
> > designer' should be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the
> > program.
>
> Doesn't all that back pedaling tire your legs?
What do you think he's back pedaling from, gluehead? It's certainly not
the proof you didn't produce for your obvious lie to John.
Run, Snit... RUN! - LOL!
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-CCEC76.10...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 7:28 AM:
>
> >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >> -----
> >> Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
> >> teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website
> >> designer.
> >
> > Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing
> > about the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website
> > designer' should be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the
> > program.
>
> Doesn't all that back pedaling tire your legs?
No back peddling involved. What does teaching a program' have to do with the
quality, or lack of quality, of the program itself? Nothing.
Too bad your reading comprehension is so bad or you might understand that simple
point.
>
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >> -----
> >> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
> >
> > Which doesn't speak about the program, just the ability to _teach_ the
> > program.
> > Too bad your reading comprehension is so bad.
>
> What massive leg muscles you have! LOL!
>
What does teaching a program' have to do with the quality, or lack of quality,
of the program itself? Nothing.
Too bad your reading comprehension is so bad or you might understand that simple
point.
> >
> > ~further trolling by michael glasser snipped.
>
> Wow! Tim runs again. How unpredictable! LOL!
I'm not running. I'm standing by what I wrote and you apparently find to
complicated to understand. Something that's not surprising at all seeing your
trolling history. Teaching Dreamweaver has nothing to do with the quality, or
lack of quality of the program.
It also has nothing to do with the ability of the teacher to design web sites,
which is what I was commenting on. The sites that you've designed and linked to
here in csma prove that you are indeed a shitty designer. It says nothing about
whether or not you used dreamweaver, golive, frontpage or bbedit or some other
aid to do the work.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
It sop for snit to lie every chance he gets. Just his normal trolling with the
hopes that everybody will just let it slide.
Snit
>> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
>> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
>
>
> I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
Nice movement of the goal post, Steve. Keep in mind what my claim about you
is:
and, I believe, Carroll offered his support as well.
And what do you know, for over 1200 post you have been lying about me and
supporting Sandman's trolling (and your own). Almost 4 months of you
spewing the same lie on average 10 times a day... and you *still* want to
deny it exists: <http://snipurl.com/sdeu>.
LOL! Isn't it about time for another of your break downs, Steve?
ZnU
You bring up these past examples, however, as if they demonstrate a
record of inaccuracy for the people making the present projections and
the methods they use. Previous predictions were made by different people
using different methods.
> >2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
> > previously.
>
> And its still far from complete. That's one of the things that amuses
> me. If these clowns get cornered they will admit they don't understand
> how the climate works. However they still insist that their models
> work.
> Even so it doesn't take much imagination to hear the guys in 1938 say
> that to skeptics who point out the 1895 failure or to the 1970
> skeptics who point out the 1895 and 1938 failure. It, likewise, isn't
> hard to imagine the 2100 DOOM!sayers making the same point to their
> skeptics when they point out the 1895, 1938, 1970 and 1985 failures.
> And it grows as it goes. At some point intelligent people say 'Fool me
> once and all that'.
See above.
> >3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
> > outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.
>
> Iraq is going better than CBS and the New York Times will ever tell
> you. Like that upbeat soldier told Matt Lauer 'If I got all my news
> about Iraq from the newspapers I'd be depressed too.' It helps to know
> a bunch of people who are actually over there, something that I doubt
> many liberals do.
Iraq is going worse than your right-wing propaganda sites will ever tell
you.
> >> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
> >> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
> >> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
> >> the year 2100.
> >
> >Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
> >like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
> >casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
> >win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
> >round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
> >a year?"
>
> Actrually what I'm saying is that these guys don't know as much as
> they act like they do and it shows in their abilities.
Here, have some climate change model results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Not a bad match, yes? Guess what the model says about the next 100 years.
Snit
8:59 AM:
> In article <C0C6907C.53205%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-CCEC76.10...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
>> 7:28 AM:
>>
>>>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>>>> -----
>>>> Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
>>>> teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website
>>>> designer.
>>>
>>> Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing
>>> about the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website
>>> designer' should be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the
>>> program.
>>
>> Doesn't all that back pedaling tire your legs?
>
> No back peddling involved. What does teaching a program' have to do with the
> quality, or lack of quality, of the program itself? Nothing. Too bad your
> reading comprehension is so bad or you might understand that simple point.
Thanks for admitting you are so ignorant of teaching that you think the
topic being taught is irrelevant. It is not *as* important as some thing,
being that teaching skills are far more important than most believe, but
still, knowing your topic is an important thing for a teacher.
At least you got the key modifier OS X option right. I still think that is
a sign showing you are heading in the right direction. What can I do to
help you nurture that part of your posting and reduce your knee-jerk
trolling and flaming?
You repeated your ignorant whining about how a teacher need not know a
program to teach it. If you think there was something of value in it let me
know...
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-160C65.11...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 8:59 AM:
>
> > In article <C0C6907C.53205%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> >> teadams$2$0$0$3-CCEC76.10...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> >> 7:28 AM:
> >>
> >>>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >>>> -----
> >>>> Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
> >>>> teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website
> >>>> designer.
> >>>
> >>> Which is true. A monkey could teach dreamweaver. That comment says nothing
> >>> about the program itself. The 'but nobody would consider it a website
> >>> designer' should be self explanatory and again does NOT refer to the
> >>> program.
> >>
> >> Doesn't all that back pedaling tire your legs?
> >
> > No back peddling involved. What does teaching a program' have to do with the
> > quality, or lack of quality, of the program itself? Nothing. Too bad your
> > reading comprehension is so bad or you might understand that simple point.
>
> Thanks for admitting you are so ignorant of teaching that you think the
> topic being taught is irrelevant.
Just where did you get that bs? Oh, that's right. You're making shit up again.
> It is not *as* important as some thing,
> being that teaching skills are far more important than most believe, but
> still, knowing your topic is an important thing for a teacher.
People teach all sorts of subjects. Doesn't mean they know the subject well or
can deal with questions that arise that Are NOT covered in the book(s) being
used for that specific class.
~babbling attempt of trolling by snit, as he tries to run away from the current
topic where he's being proved a fool - yet again - snipped
GreyCloud
Actually, when you take a closer look at that graph, and when you put it
in line with whold degrees rather than tenths of a degree, that chart is
going to look pretty flat. This chart is very mis-leading and really
doesn't show much.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Snit
11:05 AM:
Your words, you moron... though I can see why you would want to distance
yourself from your own claims:
Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-9D336B.06...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
Of course he overlooks the fact that a monkey could be trained to
teach Dreamweaver also, but nobody would consider it a website designer.
-----
Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
-----
As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
-----
Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher? Is there any reason to
think you have the skills to do so?
> Oh, that's right. You're making shit up again.
In what way do you think I make up the Google record?
>> It is not *as* important as some thing,
>> being that teaching skills are far more important than most believe, but
>> still, knowing your topic is an important thing for a teacher.
>
> People teach all sorts of subjects. Doesn't mean they know the subject well or
> can deal with questions that arise that Are NOT covered in the book(s) being
> used for that specific class.
Do you consider such people in front of a class doing real teaching?
Either way you slide it, Tim, you jumped in to troll me in support of
Sandman's trolling. I know how much facts piss you off, but you should just
work on accepting reality.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-4CB818....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 8:11 AM:
>
> >> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> >> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
> >
> >
> > I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
>
> Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
You moved the goal post. John wrote:
"What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is
the professionals tool of choice."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0542ba5fe8a2144c
?dmode=source&hl=en
You replied:
"Sandman has repeatedly made the claim."
You then posted some links and followed with:
"And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
believe, Carroll offered his support as well."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d3d780a0a6d6b24
?dmode=source&hl=en
> Keep in mind what my claim about you is:
>
> and, I believe, Carroll offered his support as well.
I'm well aware of it... and you've not been able to show that I even
talked about Dreamweaver before you lied to John over it. Google shows
John understood the context you made the statement in... even if you
didn't;) That's why he answered you with:
"Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On
both Mac and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and
Steve should know better."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7f8e6cb585592d00
?dmode=source&hl=en
Gee, I wonder if John will be so quick to swallow one of your idiotic
lies again? LOL!
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-2869C8.12...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sure... most everyone expects Snit to be lying. The thing that is
surprising here is that someone actually believed him;)
Snit
> In article <C0C6B09A.5321F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-4CB818....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 8:11 AM:
>>
>>>> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
>>>> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
>>
>> Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
>
>
> You moved the goal post.
I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
of conversation with me.
Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well, and at the
very least supported Sandman's absurd notion that a "trained monkey" could
teach *anything*, no less how to use the #1 professional web design tool.
You continued your spewing of support for Sandman, if by nothing else
continuing to dishonestly attribute the following quote to me (though you
have been repeatedly told it was authored by TLK):
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself"
I do not care what excuses you make for your repeated trolling and flaming
of me and your support of Sandman; as has been shown you have repeated your
lie over 1200 times in less than 4 months - that is averaging more than 10
times a day.
The rest of your BS below is just a smoke screen where you try to obfuscate
the above. Well, Steve, who do you think is stupid enough to believe what a
lying, moronic, asshole of a bigot such as yourself says.
--
€ Dreamweaver, being a pro web design tool, is not used by just beginners
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-95590B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 1:35 PM:
>
> > In article <C0C6B09A.5321F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-4CB818....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 8:11 AM:
> >>
> >>>> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> >>>> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
> >>
> >> Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
> >
> >
> > You moved the goal post.
>
>
> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
> of conversation with me.
Translation: You have no interest in discussing what actually happened,
you only want to discuss your irrelevant, glue induced delusions.
This has a lot to do with why so many have killfiled you on this NG.
(snip stuff Snit thinks will throw people off his trail of bullshit)
Begin reality that Snit can't run fast enough away from...
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Snit
>>> You moved the goal post.
>>
>>
>> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
>> of conversation with me.
>
> Translation
No need to "translate" (which is one of your common words you use when
copping out of a conversation). Here is what you are running from:
---------
Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well, and at the
very least supported Sandman's absurd notion that a "trained monkey" could
teach *anything*, no less how to use the #1 professional web design tool.
You continued your spewing of support for Sandman, if by nothing else
continuing to dishonestly attribute the following quote to me (though you
have been repeatedly told it was authored by TLK):
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself"
I do not care what excuses you make for your repeated trolling and flaming
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C0C6B09A.5321F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> > noone-4CB818....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 8:11 AM:
> >
> > >> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> > >> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
> > >
> > >
> > > I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
> >
> > Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
>
>
> You moved the goal post. John wrote:
>
> "What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is
> the professionals tool of choice."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0542ba5fe8a2144c
> ?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> You replied:
>
> "Sandman has repeatedly made the claim."
>
> You then posted some links and followed with:
>
> "And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
> believe, Carroll offered his support as well."
Pleas note how snit has continued to run away from that claim he made, offering
no support for it at all.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d3d780a0a6d6b24
> ?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> > Keep in mind what my claim about you is:
> >
> > and, I believe, Carroll offered his support as well.
>
> I'm well aware of it... and you've not been able to show that I even
> talked about Dreamweaver before you lied to John over it. Google shows
> John understood the context you made the statement in... even if you
> didn't;) That's why he answered you with:
>
> "Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On
> both Mac and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and
> Steve should know better."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7f8e6cb585592d00
> ?dmode=source&hl=en
>
> Gee, I wonder if John will be so quick to swallow one of your idiotic
> lies again? LOL!
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-95590B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 1:35 PM:
>
> > In article <C0C6B09A.5321F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-4CB818....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 8:11 AM:
> >>
> >>>> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> >>>> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
> >>
> >> Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
> >
> >
> > You moved the goal post.
>
>
> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
> of conversation with me.
>
> Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
> Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well,
Still lying I see. But that is only to be expected if your name is michael
glasser aka snit
~babbling snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-585961....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 3:29 PM:
>
> >>> You moved the goal post.
> >>
> >>
> >> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any
> >> form
> >> of conversation with me.
> >
> > Translation
>
> No need to "translate" (which is one of your common words you use when
> copping out of a conversation). Here is what you are running from:
>
> ---------
> Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
> Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well
and still you lie. Typical of a troll especially when something has been proved
to be a lie - he keeps repeating it.
~yet more trolling by snit snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
So where did you get your lie "Thanks for admitting you are so ignorant of
teaching that you think the topic being taught is irrelevant." Teaching a monkey
to teach a subject certainly doesn't say it. SO I was correct in the fact that
you were just making up bs. Thanks for proving my point.
>
> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> -----
> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
> -----
>
> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to train a
monkey to do it.
~more babbling as the trolling snit tried to wander further away from his
original claim snipped
Snit
6:28 PM:
>> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
>> of conversation with me.
>>
>> Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
>> Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well,
>
> Still lying I see.
Do you deny you not only claimed trained monkeys could use Dreamweaver but
teach it as well? Do you deny you stated such an ignorant thing that shows
you have no knowledge of either the technical skills needed nor the teaching
skills needed to teach such a class?
Come on, Tim, you whined I was "running" from such a discussion. Be a man
and respond in the most honest and honorable way you know how!
Snit
6:30 PM:
>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>> -----
>> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
>> -----
>>
>> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
>> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
>
> You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to train a
> monkey to do it.
Wow, Tim, you really are completely ignorant of what it takes to teach.
Funny, though, that you make it clear a trained monkey could do what you can
*not*. Tee hee.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-9B3D34.21...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 6:30 PM:
>
> >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >> -----
> >> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
> >> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
> >
> > You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to train a
> > monkey to do it.
>
> Wow, Tim, you really are completely ignorant of what it takes to teach.
You showed this NG your idea of 'teaching'... belittling someone based
on some perceived ignorance you think they have (but can't show any
proof for). No wonder you lost your teaching credentials.
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Snit
> In article <C0C72E17.532DF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-9B3D34.21...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
>> 6:30 PM:
>>
>>>> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
>>>> -----
>>>> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
>>>> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
>>>
>>> You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to train a
>>> monkey to do it.
>>
>> Wow, Tim, you really are completely ignorant of what it takes to teach.
>> Funny, though, that you make it clear a trained monkey could do what you can
>> *not*. Tee hee.
Note: no relevant comment from Steve Carroll, just more of his lies, below:
>
> You showed this NG your idea of 'teaching'... belittling someone based
> on some perceived ignorance you think they have (but can't show any
> proof for). No wonder you lost your teaching credentials.
Cite? Evidence? Anything other than your fantasies?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-585961....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 3:29 PM:
>
> >>> You moved the goal post.
> >>
> >>
> >> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any
> >> form
> >> of conversation with me.
> >
> > Translation
>
> No need to "translate" (which is one of your common words you use when
> copping out of a conversation). Here is what you are running from:
(snip Snit's attempt to change reality with his own re-wording)
Here's how it really went down (as google will show... every step of the
way). John wrote:
"What fuckup claimed people who used Dreamweaver were beginners? It is
the professionals tool of choice."
Proof from google that John wrote this is shown here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/0542ba5fe8a2144c
?dmode=source&hl=en
You replied to John with:
"Sandman has repeatedly made the claim."
You then posted some links and followed the above line of text with:
"And, of course, Tim Adams jumped in to agree with Sandman and, I
believe, Carroll offered his support as well."
Proof from google that you replied to John as shown above is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6d3d780a0a6d6b24
?dmode=source&hl=en
Google also shows John understood the context you made the statement
in... even though *you* obviously didn't understand it;) That's why John
answered you with:
"Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design. On
both Mac and PC platforms. From Sandbag I would expect it, but Tim and
Steve should know better."
Proof from google showing John replying with this response is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7f8e6cb585592d00
?dmode=source&hl=en
See how you can't change the google record no matter how much glue you
sniff, Snot? LOL!
--
"Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself" - Snit
Snit
noone-585961....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 6/27/06 3:29 PM:
>>> You moved the goal post.
>>
>>
>> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
>> of conversation with me.
>
> Translation
No need to "translate" (which is one of your common words you use when
copping out of a conversation). Here is what you are running from:
---------
Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well, and at the
very least supported Sandman's absurd notion that a "trained monkey" could
teach *anything*, no less how to use the #1 professional web design tool.
You continued your spewing of support for Sandman, if by nothing else
continuing to dishonestly attribute the following quote to me (though you
have been repeatedly told it was authored by TLK):
"Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself"
I do not care what excuses you make for your repeated trolling and flaming
Mayor of R'lyeh
And the fact that they've *always* been wrong doesn't make an
impression on you?
>
>> >2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
>> > previously.
>>
>> And its still far from complete. That's one of the things that amuses
>> me. If these clowns get cornered they will admit they don't understand
>> how the climate works. However they still insist that their models
>> work.
>> Even so it doesn't take much imagination to hear the guys in 1938 say
>> that to skeptics who point out the 1895 failure or to the 1970
>> skeptics who point out the 1895 and 1938 failure. It, likewise, isn't
>> hard to imagine the 2100 DOOM!sayers making the same point to their
>> skeptics when they point out the 1895, 1938, 1970 and 1985 failures.
>> And it grows as it goes. At some point intelligent people say 'Fool me
>> once and all that'.
>
>See above.
The guys who claim that UFO aliens secretly rule the world aren't the
same one who were making that claim 50 years ago. They've advanced
their understanding of how the aliens secretly rule the world in the
past 50 years. I guess you take them seriously too.
>
>> >3) It is not, in fact, the case that everyone who predicts negative
>> > outcomes has always been wrong. See e.g. the Iraq war.
>>
>> Iraq is going better than CBS and the New York Times will ever tell
>> you. Like that upbeat soldier told Matt Lauer 'If I got all my news
>> about Iraq from the newspapers I'd be depressed too.' It helps to know
>> a bunch of people who are actually over there, something that I doubt
>> many liberals do.
>
>Iraq is going worse than your right-wing propaganda sites will ever tell
>you.
Out of three second cousins, a couple of friends' sons, a couple of
guys my brother knows and a handful of other people I know who have
been and come back from Iraq (and in more than a few cases, gone back)
which one is a 'right-wing propaganda site'?
Like I said it helps to actually know people who are over there. I
doubt if you even know of anyone who knows anyone who has been to
Iraq...unless you know some traitor at the New York Times who went
there and got pissed off becuase he couldn't find any of our battle
plans to put on the front page.
>
>> >> These are the same people who are only slightly less able to tell me
>> >> if its going to rain next Tuesday than a Ouija Board or a Magic 8
>> >> Ball. Only the most gullible would accept their weather forecast for
>> >> the year 2100.
>> >
>> >Weather is not the same thing as climate, Mayor. What you're doing is
>> >like telling a guy who has come to you with a business plan for a
>> >casino "What do you mean you know how much the customers are going to
>> >win? If you can't predict the results of an individual slot machine
>> >round next Tuesday, how can you predict the winnings over the course of
>> >a year?"
>>
>> Actrually what I'm saying is that these guys don't know as much as
>> they act like they do and it shows in their abilities.
>
>Here, have some climate change model results:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
>
>Not a bad match, yes? Guess what the model says about the next 100 years.
Wikipedia...next!
http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/jul00/play.htm
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
ZnU
There is no such "they", Mayor. That was my point.
> >> >2) Understanding of climate science is much better now than it was
> >> > previously.
> >>
> >> And its still far from complete. That's one of the things that amuses
> >> me. If these clowns get cornered they will admit they don't understand
> >> how the climate works. However they still insist that their models
> >> work.
> >> Even so it doesn't take much imagination to hear the guys in 1938 say
> >> that to skeptics who point out the 1895 failure or to the 1970
> >> skeptics who point out the 1895 and 1938 failure. It, likewise, isn't
> >> hard to imagine the 2100 DOOM!sayers making the same point to their
> >> skeptics when they point out the 1895, 1938, 1970 and 1985 failures.
> >> And it grows as it goes. At some point intelligent people say 'Fool me
> >> once and all that'.
> >
> >See above.
>
> The guys who claim that UFO aliens secretly rule the world aren't the
> same one who were making that claim 50 years ago. They've advanced
> their understanding of how the aliens secretly rule the world in the
> past 50 years. I guess you take them seriously too.
See, the difference is, today's UFO nuts really don't have any more
basis for their claims than the UFO nuts of 50 years ago.
It's a graph based on data from peer-reviewed journal articles, Mayor.
Go read them if you don't trust Wikipedia.
> http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/jul00/play.htm
This article is laughable, Mayor. First, it's wrong; as you can see on
the page I linked to above, the model tracks measurements quite nicely
between the end of WWII and the 1970s.
Second, the whole "they ran it five times" objection is moronic. If
you've got a model and you're not sure of every parameter, it makes
perfect sense to try running it several times with different parameters,
to see which give you the best results. If the model provides good
results with one reasonable set of parameters, that's a fairly good
indication that it's a decent model, because there's no reason to expect
a bad model to produce accurate results with *any* set of parameters.
This kind of thing goes on in other sciences, you know. In physics, for
instance, there are sometimes sets of equations which make very accurate
predictions... but only if you plug in the right constants. And in some
cases, the only real way to get those constants is to plug different
things into the equations until they start producing accurate
predictions.
Scientists hate stuff like this, because it means there's something they
don't fully understand yet, but it doesn't prevent accurate modeling.
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
> mr-CE45CF.11...@individual.net on 6/27/06 2:15 AM:
>
> > In article <p4OdndNq2r0KAj3Z...@adelphia.com>,
> > "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dreamweaver is the professionals tool of choice for web design.
> >
> > ...of all the wysiwyg tools available.
> >
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> <http://snipurl.com/sd49>
>
> Run, Sandman, run!
From what?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>> It's never happened.
> >>
> >> In reference to Dreamweaver you stated:
> >>
> >> I don't use wysiwyg tools. They are for beginners.
> >
> > As opposed to "It's used only by beginners".
>
> You mean like you stated here:
>
> Post: <mr-5D664C.08...@individual.net>
> -----
> Snit: Do you think Photoshop is only for beginners - you know,
> like how you claimed Dreamweaver is.
> Sandman: Because it is.
> -----
Where, in the above quote, do I state that dreamweaver is used only by
beginners, Michael? Obfuscation.
> Funny how you snipped that (and so much else from the post you are running
> from: <http://snipurl.com/sd49>). LOL! First Carroll runs from his support
> of you, then Adams... and now even you want to run from your support of you.
How come everyone supports me and no one supports you?
> Then to make matters worse you claimed that a whole class of programs - a
> class that includes Dreamweaver - is more commonly used than Dreamweaver.
This never happened.
> And below you attempt to obfuscate... gee, you snip, run, and obfuscate...
> and lie... care to look at your "objective trolling criteria"? LOL!
You mean the one you fit every point of?
Michael Objective Troll Criteria Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 [X] Obfuscation
2 [ ] Antagonizing threads
3 [ ] Ignoring evidence
4 [ ] Antagonizing through other media
5 [ ] Quote-scavanging
6 [ ] Thread hijacking
7 [X] Projection
8 [ ] Unsubstantiated accusations
9 [ ] Unsubstantiated "refutations"
10 [ ] Forging posts and material
11 [ ] Insults
12 [ ] Role Reversal
13 [ ] Lying
14 [ ] Having an agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Obfuscation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a trolls main weapon. Most trolls are not very good debaters
or have very good or compelling arguments, so it's of outmost
importance that they are well versed in obfuscation instead. This is
mainly noticeable when their "opponents" say something that has even
the slightest chance to be misinterpreted. So even if this
misinterpretation is the most far fetched on can think of, it's
naturally the only valid way it could possibly be interpreted
according to the troll. A fine example of this is in one of Steve
Carrolls posts which was a reply to CSMA_Moderator (a periodic poster
that posts quotes that point out the number of people that has said
unfavorable things about Michael Glasser. Steve Carroll posted this
reply [1] to the original post and quite clearly only quoted one
quote and stated that he was the author of that quote. It is
noteworthy that he directs his comment to Snit, which is due to the
fact that somehow Snit wants to claim that Steve is the one who is
posting as CSMA_Moderator and Steve just plays the same card back.
Snit, being a troll, responds [2] by interpreting Steves reply as an
admittance that he is not the author of the quote he quoted, he is
the author of the entire post that was posted under the name
CSMA_Moderator. You can't get much far fetched than that.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9f843713b31
751a1>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fbee674dfde
048da>
7. Projection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entire essays could be written on this particular criteria. Suffice it
to say, that a troll is often eager to project his own shortcomings
upon others so his own will be less obvious. For instance, a troll is
often found accusing its "opponents" of the things he himself is being
accused of, often using the same phrasing. A good example of this is
Michael Glassers "Snit Circus", a term coined by Sandman [1]to
describe the never ending loop of Snit trolling most threads Michael
Glasser joins end up in. Michael himself has since then tried to label
his opponents posts as a circus, calling them troll and picking up
current phrases used to describe him. The troll does this so that a
casual reader who isn't informed will see these labels in reference
to not only the trolls actions, but also his opponents actions.
1:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3c374e5a389
1fa0b>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> For an average of 10x a day for close to 4 months Steve has lied about me
> >>>> while trying to defend his trolling and the trolling of Sandman.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I see no support of your claim that I talked about Dreamweaver here,
> >>
> >> Nice movement of the goal post, Steve.
> >
> >
> > You moved the goal post.
>
> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any form
> of conversation with me.
>
> Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver. Tim
> Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well, and at the
> very least supported Sandman's absurd notion that a "trained monkey" could
> teach *anything*, no less how to use the #1 professional web design tool.
> You continued your spewing of support for Sandman, if by nothing else
> continuing to dishonestly attribute the following quote to me (though you
> have been repeatedly told it was authored by TLK):
>
> "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
> like myself"
15. Diversion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When the troll gets tangled up in his lies and obfuscation in a way
where there is no way to move his argument further, he will create a
diversion. This is also where the trolls agenda [1] is mostly shown
and the troll will begin talking about other issues he or she is
having in order to divert away from the current failure.
And example is this [2], when Michael all of a sudden brings up a
totally unrelated issue regarding a specific quote Steve has been
posting in an issue that deals with whether Steve had commented on
dreamweaver. Note how he claims to have moved the goalpost "back"
while introducing a totally unrelated issue.
1:<http://csma.sandman.net/texter/read.php?id=102889>
2:<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4111bc3c408
a9354>
--
Sandman[.net]
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-2F5132.21...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 6:28 PM:
>
> >> I moved it back, and back is where it will stay if you want to have any
> >> form
> >> of conversation with me.
> >>
> >> Sandman made it very clear he was ignorant about who uses Dreamweaver.
> >> Tim
> >> Adams jumped in and made it quite clear he was ignorant as well,
> >
> > Still lying I see.
>
> Do you deny you not only claimed trained monkeys could use Dreamweaver but
> teach it as well?
Making up another claim I never made I see. Why don't you learn to read what's
written? I stated that you could train a monkey to teach Dreamweaver but that
you wouldn't consider it a web designer just like you.
~more babbling based on the trolling snits inability to read and follow a topic
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-9B3D34.21...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> 6:30 PM:
>
> >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> >> -----
> >> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical, programmatic,
> >> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
> >
> > You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to train a
> > monkey to do it.
>
> Wow, Tim,
pointed out how stupid snit is. AGAIN.
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> In article <C0C72E17.532DF%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> > teadams$2$0$0$3-9B3D34.21...@news.west.earthlink.net on 6/27/06
> > 6:30 PM:
> >
> > >> Post: <teadams$2$0$0$3-2B897C.16...@news.west.earthlink.net>
> > >> -----
> > >> As mentioned before, a monkey can be taught to teach Dreamweaver,
> > >> -----
> > >>
> > >> Do you still think a trained monkey would have the technical,
> > >> programmatic,
> > >> and teaching skills to be a Dreamweaver teacher?
> > >
> > > You claim to teach it so it would be a piece of cake for somebody to
> > > train a
> > > monkey to do it.
> >
> > Wow, Tim, you really are completely ignorant of what it takes to teach.
>
>
> You showed this NG your idea of 'teaching'... belittling someone based
> on some perceived ignorance you think they have (but can't show any
> proof for). No wonder you lost your teaching credentials.
You mean he actually had 'teaching credentials' at one time?