I don't think so, I think that no sane person can last happily in this
list with its present constitution, as there are 'spamming' incidents.
This is a general worry, not for now because i don't even bother to read
most emails any more.
On the other hand I have learned quite a few things in the list, but
really, I pay hard for this!
Mary Christmas to all,
Maria-Stella
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Paul Kirby wrote:
> While not in sympathy with all that Steve says nor the way he sometimes
> says it, I think it unfair to pick on him uniquely for criticism.
>
> Thats all.
>
> Regards Paul K
>
> >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
> >>
> >>
>
|