Print

---

[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> Brian, Kevin,

in haste, Brian, unncecessary and fatuous comment.... and Kevin, that touch of the intemperate readers sometimes get from yours....

frankly haven't time to moderate your spats. I suggest you both just give yourselves self-denying ordinances until at least the weekend. The level of JISC discussion was getting better...we're in danger of going back from whence we came. So in the gentlest terms, please...enough!  

OK?
mark




on 3/12/12 7:28 pm, Kevin Coleman at [log in to unmask] wrote:

Dear Mr Orr,
Kindly desist in inflaming the debates with your incessant propaganda re geoengineering.
You are fast approaching the status of the Irish Election on EU policy.
When the wrong result was received to the petition of a particular EU policy they simply ran the election again until the people (the electorate) agreed with the EU policy being petitioned, despite the previous result demonstrating quite clearly that the electorate were not in favour. Which incidentally was what happened and at great expense to the self same electorate (in more ways than one I may add).

Now is that not what you are attempting to do here with your persistence on the geoengineering question? This also applies to the rest of your group I might add, who also behave in the self same manner time and time again. There comes a point Mr Orr when enough is enough and I took the liberty of making that point for and on behalf of those of us who quite frankly have had quite enough.

I do believe that if you had, at any stage of the debate so far, presented me with a convincing argument and a supportable methodology to give the thumbs up to the use of geoengineering techniques then I think I would have reached that consensus a long time ago by dint of the sheer volume of postings that you and your colleagues have seen fit to put onto the Crisis Forum. The fact that I haven't does not in any way disallow me from defending the status quo on non approval of geoengineering just in case anyone happened to miss my previous objections to it. Or as in this case the pro brigade do not get the message.
By the way my objections in comment form on the Crisis Forum have been and always will be in the minority of such posts by comparison to the deluge of pro geoengineering posts that have beset us at almost every turn.

So in identifying your modus operandi I raised the point re another individuals standpoint and you now feel inclined to call me names. Isn't that 'Trollish' behaviour Mr Orr? (As per your pertinently pasted definition).
Kind regards
Kev C
The Non-Troll.
On 03/12/2012 19:06, Brian Orr wrote:

Hi Kevin,

You're getting decidedly 'trollish'* in your style of debating, at least when the topic of geoengineering is raised.

Brian

*a troll ( / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> ? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> t <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> r <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> o? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> , / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> ? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> t <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> r <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> ? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key> / <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English> ) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#cite_note-1>  extraneous <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extraneous#Adjective> , or off-topic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic>  messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog,
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an

-- 
"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb