Good. It's just too much wasted energy and I really do think it
drives others away. Deleting or filtering is a good way to go. It
makes it unnecessary for listowners to censor or restrict
subscribership - a task they should not do anyway (unless of
course someone gets really out of hand).
Best and keep on sending the great info and insights,
Mike
> Agreed, I keep get beaten down by his rhetoric. I am going to delete his
> mail from now on....don't feed trolls, ignore them....
>
> Thanks
>
> Will perhaps set up an altenative list on enviro ethiks at egroups. I have
> a list on ecotheology but have not invited anyone yet....
>
> john
>
>
> At 12:18 AM 12/19/00 -0000, Michael Meuser wrote:
> >Hi - It's clear that this guy Steve's only intent is to confuse, disrupt
> >and interrupt decent discussions. It's hard to do at times, but I think
> >the best is to just ignore, act like he didn't even respond and go on.
> >Dealing with him just drags all of us down, saps our energy. I'm sure
> >that many do not post or discuss because they don't want to have to face
> >this. You can even put a filter on most email programs that will just
> >delete any messages for so and so before you ever even see them.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >> Dear Folks, how would you like to be off and on a list for over two
> >> years, and each time that you post a sincere message on a topic, you
> >> have a reply coming back from the same person on the list, 99 times out
> >> of 100, in disagreement. I am not the only one....I wrote a message to
> >> Benjamin about global modeling, and I get a rebuttal from you know
> >> who....
> >>
> >> But look at this:
> >>
> >> Steve:
> >> >As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted
> >> >before, reconstructed data from proxy sources. It is the data that is
> >> >used by James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming. Thus, if
> >> >John's criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it
> >> >means the predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong.
> >> >ROFLMAO!!"
> >>
> >> I had no idea that on November 28, 2000, that Steve would actually take
> >> the time and think about what I had pointed out regarding his data set.
> >> That possibly the data was 'proxy' data. That it was actually not
> >> possible to measure irradience outside the atmosphere in 1900. So to
> >> save face, he finally after 2 years of constant sniping and barbs,
> >> indicates that well I may have been correct.
> >>
> >> But you know Folks, he has forgotten my little lesson and is now
> >> contradicting himself. It was okay to use proxy data when it proved his
> >> point, but then when proxy data was not useful for proving his point,
> >> then he does not like it because it is proxy data.
> >>
> >> Here is what he said, December 18, 2000:
> >>
> >> >Given the lack of actual data and the reliance on considerable amounts
> >> >of proxy data the models that predict out for over 100 years should be
> >> >taken not only with a grain of salt, but a canister.
> >>
> >> Way too funny....anyway Folks I could not help myself. Yes way too
> >> funny. A person that only argues for argument sake never convinces
> >> anyone. And it was William James that said that in "Principles of
> >> Psychology". "Arguments never convince anyone". Honest I am not trying
> >> to 'goad him' but rather point out the contradictions in the
> >> 'arguments' ....which if I am on this list for two more years will be
> >> identical in style as they were four years previously.....
> >>
> >> chao,
> >>
> >> john foster
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
|