Re: Anthropogenic climate change a myth?

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:03:34 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <jrlqv2drmm4fpehlg8sv7mvcm9etso7q56@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:23:16 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <kieqv2dhj0v2m1fqr7tpo1goseivo22o3c@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:39:47 +0000, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


snip of redundant material.

No problem with that.


Absolutely not. I am snipping redundant material. If you posted your
mantra once in a thread, then there's absolutely no point in leaving
successive posts of the identical text in subsequent messages, it adds
nothing to what is already there and just makes the whole message get so
long as to be very difficult to follow an


Complete and utter rubbish You selectively snip from the immediately
preceding post. If you were snipping to shorten the length you
should snip redundant material well before that.

I very often do. You may not have noticed, but I have, for years, been
snipping exchanges which have petered out and just leaving those to
which you have continued to respond. Go back and have a look.


I've no problem with that. But what you're doing is snipping parts of
the preceding post.

If it merely repeats what you have already posted, then it is redundant,
and you have said that it is all right to snip redundant material.

Not in a preceding post.


I will continue to snip messages if the material in them merely repeats
what is already there.

S your answer is "no". That's fine by me.

Once is enough. Repeating it again and again in
the same sequence of messages is redundant and deserves to be snipped.

But not in the immediately preceding post. That amounts to forgery
because you are denying the reader of comparing my post with your
reply and harming my position.

Complete and utter nonsense. I snip nothing that the reader has not seen
and read, usually very many times over and over and over again, if they
bother, that is.

That's a lie. You don't know what readers have or have not read.

That is covered by the "if they bother".


No it's not you don't know what they bother to read.




That is not altering the message, merely reducing its length - the first
time will still be there

See above.

And see above yourself. I snip nothing that the reader, if interested,
will not have already read.

The same lie repeated.

See above.

See above.



Your altering of my messages is totally
different.

No it's not.

If you think that snipping parts of an existing message which all who
want to will have read and adding words to make it look as if a poster
has written them when he hasn't aren't totally different, then I fear
that you are confessing to a complete comprehension failure.

The same lie repeated. How do you know who has read what?

If you don't believe that readers are reading your posts, then why do
you bother to post here and why do you bother to repeat, endlessly, your
tired mantras about non-existent "fakes", etc.?

Read what I wrote and don't make assumptions.


By your very act of posting here you are assuming that they are being
read.

They might be but this is not my target audience.



You have been adding words in such a way as to make it look
as if I have written them.

Just as you remove words, as though I haven't written them.

Complete and utter nonsense. Your message, with all the words you have
written, has been posted and read by all who want to.


The same lie repeated.

See above.

See above


I have never done it to any of your messages
and it is time for you to stop doing it.

I have agreed to stop altering your posts but you will not agree to
stop altering mine. All this is on record.

I'm not altering yours, I am snipping them, as is proper Usenet
practice. If you want me to reduce my snipping, then stop posting the
same material again and again and again in the same thread.

I would have no objection to you snipping earlier material provided it
was across the board but it is unacceptable to snip part of my
preceding post so you don't have to answer it or to prevent others
from reading it.

What on earth are you on about?

How can snipping a response to one of your messages possibly prevent
someone from reading what you wrote in the first place?


You're confused. Read what I wrote.

You've got it the wrong way round.




Everything you post has now to
be read in the context of your admission that you have committed
forgery.

Not at all. I am merely retaliating against your forgery by removing
my responses. It amounts to the same thing

No, Angus, it is completely different.


No it's not, for the reasons stated above.

Your reasons are fundamentally flawed.


Not at all. You're confused.




If you forge my posts by snipping material, I shall alter yours in any
way I think fit without and further fore-warning.

Don't be ridiculous. Your posts have appeared complete and as you wrote
them.
There is no requirement for them to be left entire when someone
responds to them, indeed there is a strong recommendation of good
Usenet practice to snip

There is if you are snipping part of my response to avoid answering
or acknowledging the content.

I'm snipping redundant material, just as you agreed should be done.


No. you're twisting It's not redundant in the preceding post..




I think you're being extremely stupid in not accepting my offer but
that's up to you.

Of course it is.

Ok from now on I won't add any material to your posts

Good, you've seen sense at last and decided not to carry on committing
the crime of forgery. How *very* sensible of you.

So you can stop saying I am.


but I shall snip
at will. Two can play at your game.

I think you're still being extremely stupid.

And I accept your inevitable surrender, as evidenced by your childish
abuse.


Malcolm Ogilvie has a great problem with personal abuse; he can give
it but can't take it. He frequently abuses me by calling me a liar,
twister, ignorant, stupid etc., because I don't agree with his fake
conservation opinions but when he makes obvious blunders he can't cope
with personal criticism using similar abuse back at him. He seems to
particularly dislike the Dr Thick label.

He tries to claim that this amounts to my surrender, which is patently
not the case, but seems too dim to understand that by his own argument
he has often already surrendered himself. Such a claim shows a
befuddled mind that is incapable of logical thought and therefore
justifies the labels attached to him.

He has great difficulty in coping with reasoned argument and
mistakenly thinks that his opinions should go unquestioned and that
any other opinions are worthless.

This might be the result of a severe personality disorder that could
perhaps be described as smartarseology and is probably incurable.



I am


Good, I'm glad you agree.


I'm glad you still agree.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush regime rejects dissidents call to loosen embargo
    ... "Amnesty International has called for the US embargo against Cuba to ... You can snip, but you cannot hide, Mr. Lobbyist! ... What Mr. Lobbyist keeps snipping in his utter despair: ... repeating your failed arguments and your transparent denials and ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: Superb example of conservation in action
    ... "All messages which Angus posts and claims are by me have to ... What snip? ... I am more than willing to stop snipping your posts if you will stop ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: Signature question
    ... That's what snipping is all about. ... <snip>. ... bottom posting is just flat-out ... considered proper netiquette. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: To toggle or not to toggle (was) Thread and subject changing
    ... I think the real citing vs. snip issue has to do with little troll ... one can be diligent about their snipping ... to make it clear that I have actually edited the paragraph, ... Links to NNTP newsreaders at ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: Half-century, not out--WARNING LONG
    ... you obviously forgot about the notion of snipping. ... Funny on my reader all the previous text got hidden so no need to snip ...
    (rec.bicycles.misc)
Loading