In article <41f52...@news.nwl.ac.uk>, w...@bas.ac.uk wrote: > Steve Schulin <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote: > >In article <1106528592.412898.26...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >> What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be > >> quite so tongue-tied.
> >> Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies > >> that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why > >> then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> >I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your > >various particulars.
In article <35l5nfF4nok2...@individual.net>, James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote: > > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be > >>quite so tongue-tied.
> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies > >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why > >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your > > various particulars.
> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below > to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?
> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I > >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting > my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. > Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught > telling a lie.
You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager about?
> How much of the rest of your postings do you actually believe in? Can > you identify any quantitative statement about future climate change that > you have made, which you are prepared to wager is correct?
Back during Clinton impeachment, I might have said something comparing the near-term likelihood of a cold day in hell with the likelihood that the stonewalling Democrats would vote to convict. I hesitate to mention this because somebody'll surely speculate about the implications of the difference between weather and climate as it relates to this example.
Steve Schulin wrote: > In article <1106528592.412898.26...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be >>quite so tongue-tied.
>>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your > various particulars.
It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
>>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught telling a lie.
How much of the rest of your postings do you actually believe in? Can you identify any quantitative statement about future climate change that you have made, which you are prepared to wager is correct?
>> In article <1106528592.412898.26...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, >> "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>>>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be >>>quite so tongue-tied.
>>>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies >>>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why >>>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>> I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your >> various particulars.
>It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below >to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
>>>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I >>>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting >my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. >Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught >telling a lie.
>How much of the rest of your postings do you actually believe in? Can >you identify any quantitative statement about future climate change that >you have made, which you are prepared to wager is correct?
I've come to believe that Old Nuke is just playing the debating game for the fun of it. But, Old Nuke has no clue...
If he knew anything about statistics, he would jump at the chance to wager. If the bet is defined narrowly enough, there is always some probability that one year will be cold, so, a 1000 to 1 bet might make sense just on the off chance that a cold year will appear. For example, consider the possibility of a Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Tambora in any one year. The odds might be something like 1 in 100, so a bet with 1 in 1000 payback would make sense. Especially if one could cover 50 individual years with a similar bet. One might lose 49 years, but make a killing on number 50...
-- Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-) --------------------------------------------------------------
<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote: >In article <35l5nfF4nok2...@individual.net>, > James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Steve Schulin wrote: >> > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be >> >>quite so tongue-tied.
>> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies >> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why >> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your >> > various particulars.
>> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below >> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
>Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than >in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil >these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?
He's being very civil. You, however, are not. You can't appear here all the time, tell so many tall stories that you could have penned Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones all by yourself, and with a straight face no less, then claim that you are being civil. Lying to people is the epitome of being uncivilized.
>> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I >> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting >> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. >> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught >> telling a lie.
>You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager >about?
He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're running away, as usual.
Steve Schulin wrote: > You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager > about?
I've offered a bet that, according to your stated opinion[1], is worth $25,000 to you. I've also offered to change the terms to be more suitable to you, if you are prepared to give any hint as to what terms might be acceptable. You refusal to even countenance a bargain that you claim to be highly favourable to yourself, suggests strongly that your claim is nothing more than an empty lie. What other reason do you have for turning me down?
James
[1] Steve Schulin previously wrote: "I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely."
Eric Swanson wrote: > If he knew anything about statistics, he would jump at the chance to wager. > If the bet is defined narrowly enough, there is always some probability that > one year will be cold, so, a 1000 to 1 bet might make sense just on the off > chance that a cold year will appear. For example, consider the possibility > of a Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Tambora in any one year. The odds might be > something like 1 in 100, so a bet with 1 in 1000 payback would make sense. > Especially if one could cover 50 individual years with a similar bet. > One might lose 49 years, but make a killing on number 50...
Well exactly. I am not sure that 1:1000 odds would be acceptable to me. But if they are to Steve (and it is hard to imagine how they could not be, given his claim), then we could negotiate seriously on trying to finding a mutually acceptable deal - ie, one that we both believe is favourable to ourselves.
Since so many of the septics seem to be rabid free-marketeers, I wonder why no-one else has taken me up on my offer?
> > You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager
> > about?
> I've offered a bet that, according to your stated opinion[1], is worth > $25,000 to you. I've also offered to change the terms to be more > suitable to you, if you are prepared to give any hint as to what terms > might be acceptable. You refusal to even countenance a bargain that you > claim to be highly favourable to yourself, suggests strongly that your > claim is nothing more than an empty lie. What other reason do you have > for turning me down?
> James
> [1] Steve Schulin previously wrote: "I don't know if it's going to be > warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I think there's sufficient info to > suggest which is more likely."
LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help in framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far prompts the eagerness you apparently desire. Good luck in whatever you choose to pursue.
Steve Schulin wrote: > LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help in > framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far prompts > the eagerness you apparently desire.
Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?
If you do so, I might be able to make it more reasonable to you. If you continue to duck and weave, I certainly can't hope to pre-empt whichever feeble excuse you may choose to come up with.
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:33:42 -0500, Steve Schulin > <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >In article <35l5nfF4nok2...@individual.net>, > > James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Schulin wrote: > >> > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
> >> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be > >> >>quite so tongue-tied.
> >> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies > >> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why > >> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
> >> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your > >> > various particulars.
> >> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below > >> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
> >Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than > >in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil > >these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?
> He's being very civil. You, however, are not. You can't appear > here all the time, tell so many tall stories that you could have > penned Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones all by yourself, and with a > straight face no less, then claim that you are being civil. Lying to > people is the epitome of being uncivilized.
Dang. I've heard your lyin' blather about me before. But I never knew you had something against Casey Jones.
> >> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I > >> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
> >> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting > >> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. > >> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught > >> telling a lie.
> >You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager > >about?
> He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're > running away, as usual.
This latest offering seemed too vague a proposition to me, despite the stamp of approval from all you learned cheerleaders. Talk about a bunch of straight-faced liars.
Steve Schulin wrote: > LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help in > framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far prompts > the eagerness you apparently desire.
Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?
If you do so, I might be able to make it more reasonable to you. If you continue to duck and weave, I certainly can't hope to pre-empt whichever feeble excuse you may choose to come up with.
In article <1106620845.640516.195...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help > in > > framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far > prompts > > the eagerness you apparently desire.
> Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?
> If you do so, I might be able to make it more reasonable to you. If you > continue to duck and weave, I certainly can't hope to pre-empt > whichever feeble excuse you may choose to come up with.
> James
If you're truly puzzled, I gladly refer you to my previous responses.
<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote: >In article <tn7bv0dm3l4boqa4qfp5p9lq1i81vo2...@4ax.com>, > David Ball <wrai...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:33:42 -0500, Steve Schulin >> <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> >In article <35l5nfF4nok2...@individual.net>, >> > James Annan <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Steve Schulin wrote: >> >> > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote, in part:
>> >> >>What's the matter Steve, cat got your tongue? It's unlike you to be >> >> >>quite so tongue-tied.
>> >> >>Your extreme reluctance to put your money where your mouth is implies >> >> >>that that you consider your outpourings to be literally worthless. Why >> >> >>then should anyone else take you more seriously?
>> >> > I haven't had anything I wanted to add to my previous comments on your >> >> > various particulars.
>> >> It appears that you do indeed consider your claimed "opinion" here below >> >> to be literally worthless, a throw-away lie.
>> >Nope. But I am starting to consider you in quite a different light than >> >in years past. A lot of Kerry voters are having difficulties being civil >> >these days, as best I can tell. Are you one of those miserable creatures?
>> He's being very civil. You, however, are not. You can't appear >> here all the time, tell so many tall stories that you could have >> penned Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones all by yourself, and with a >> straight face no less, then claim that you are being civil. Lying to >> people is the epitome of being uncivilized.
>Dang. I've heard your lyin' blather about me before. But I never knew >you had something against Casey Jones.
A snake-oil salesman, as always. It's too bad that people recognize the swill you're peddling. I guess you'll have to move on to somewhere that doesn't recognize your cons for what they are.
>> >> >>>I don't know if it's going to be warmer or cooler in 2030. Nor do I >> >> >>>think there's sufficient info to suggest which is more likely.
>> >> You don't believe that. If you did, you would be interested in accepting >> >> my bet, and eagerly discussing how we could make the terms rigorous. >> >> Instead, you are squirming like a small child who has been caught >> >> telling a lie.
>> >You've offered nothing but silliness thus far. What should I be eager >> >about?
>> He offered you a fair bet at more than fair terms. You're >> running away, as usual.
>This latest offering seemed too vague a proposition to me, despite the >stamp of approval from all you learned cheerleaders. Talk about a bunch >of straight-faced liars.
LOL. If you say so. Only you would attempt to claim that a bright blue sky was really cloudy and expect people to believe you.
Steve Schulin wrote: > In article <1106620845.640516.195...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "James Annan" <still_the_same...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>LOL - it sounds like there's lots of experts you could ask for help
>>in
>>>framing a reasonable proposition. Nothing you've offered so far
>>prompts
>>>the eagerness you apparently desire.
>>Can you explain why my proposition is unreasonable?
>>If you do so, I might be able to make it more reasonable to you. If you >>continue to duck and weave, I certainly can't hope to pre-empt >>whichever feeble excuse you may choose to come up with.
>>James
> If you're truly puzzled, I gladly refer you to my previous responses.
OK big shot. Offer a bet you would take or shut up.
In article <aakbv05nhpsvq3e2mst9u4ak415nq7k...@4ax.com>, Phil Hays <Spampostmas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> >Dang, Phil. I'm just calling it as I see it. How would you handle his > >contentious huckstering?
> I would handle this bet with honesty. I'd suggest you take the bet, > or that you state clearly why you will not.
> -- > Phil Hays > Phil-hays at posting domain (- .net + .com) should work for email
I have handled his various propositions honestly. More honestly than he has, as best I can tell. I see no need to restate my previous clear statements regarding any of them.
P.S. Your suggestion that taking the latest vague bet is a reasonable recommendation prompts me to think that the "twit" label you used actually applies to you.
|
