27-03-2013, 05:48 PM
Hi Chris,
the rat's ass is entirely mutual, I assure you.
1) Climate change: You completely miss the point as usual, which was the use of term "deniers" as a means of shutting down debate, implying a comparable state to holocaust deniers. Scientific sceptics, of which there are many, don't deny that that the climate is changing, nor even that some of the change may be due to human activity. They argue that the empirical evidence, which scientists should be interested in, show that the computer models are faulty, and that the wild predictions of the world overheating past a "tipping point" are just that. Using pejorative dog whistle terms like "denier" or "xxxphobic" is simply a means developed primarily be the Left, to quickly close down and stifle debate.
Criticise my intelligence if you like, but could you be a Sloan Professor of Atmospherics at MIT? I'd love to see you debate with Richard Linzen who is also a sceptic. For someone who likes to quote Google Scholar, you don't seem to keep up with the climate science papers much. There are more and more publications appearing questioning the "accepted" science (if you can call computer models science).
Since there has been no appreciable heating for 17 years, I'd say it's more likely people like you who swallow the orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker who are out in the cold. Time will prove who is right.
2) Petition. Yes, I agree the petition is free speech and wouldn't try to stop it. My intention is to point out that it is simple scapegoating.
Only sheep sign petitions without considering the facts, which in our modern world of celebrity dancing and american idol and Kardashians few people seem to have time for.
I don't think someone should lose their job for criticising anything. Maybe it's my feminine side, or maybe I don't come from a heartless culture that fires people without cause like you do.
(Have you ever considered the irony of a land of the free, home of the brave, that ties medical benefits to employment and allows termination at will? What a way to generate a population of people afraid to speak their minds... I suppose that's why you insult people in discussion forums)
Boy, the invective. Did you actually read what he wrote?
3) the usual ad-homs. Maybe it's because of the harsh upbringing you N. Americans have that teach you how to bully people... did you get stuffed in your locker, or did you stuff some other poor kid in his?
You criticise my apparent lack of intelligence, but you (mainly) and sfem (some) lose no opportunity to be insulting, aggressive and generally exhibit all the nasty masculine traits which make me wonder why the hell you want to grow breasts.
I give dispassionate opinions (or try to) but you give insults.
Even the quotation is completely out of context.
My point, if you could be bothered to follow it, is that this was a tragedy in the making. If Littlejohn had not lifted up his pen, it would still have happened. To fire Littlejohn is to miss the point entirely, and it would do nothing to stop further tragedies.
You know precious little of the culture here, but I do, and I say it was completely predictable that this would hit the newspapers.
The local rag had it before Littlejohn, the hordes of reporters which caused the damage picked it up from there, and that was the point of that quote of mine: "they might have warned the teacher that the parents may have had a bad reaction." which you somehow find controversial (and I don't see the controversy in stating a fact).
If Meadows had been given realistic advice, instead of encouragement from arrogant activists with nothing but contempt for people of the "old morality", she would still be alive now. That's what O'Neill was getting at. That poor person's suicide does wonders for "the cause". Getting her to transition at school, if successful, would have been a real coup for "the cause". The reality is that she was a pawn in a left-wing political game.
Much as you dislike it, I'm more interested in advice that keeps people alive.
Much as you dislike it, if she had moved schools, ironically as Littlejohn suggested, this would have been the better course, not for a life without teaching, but to avoid the "culture shock" on the kids, the event would not have been newsworthy, and it was the newsworthiness that likely killed her.
I think that the activists that encouraged this ground-breaking move rather than advising caution also have a degree of responsibility for this tragedy, but no one is suggesting that they be punished.
That's my opinion, and if you don't like it, you can have a rat's ass.
Regards
Bryony
the rat's ass is entirely mutual, I assure you.
1) Climate change: You completely miss the point as usual, which was the use of term "deniers" as a means of shutting down debate, implying a comparable state to holocaust deniers. Scientific sceptics, of which there are many, don't deny that that the climate is changing, nor even that some of the change may be due to human activity. They argue that the empirical evidence, which scientists should be interested in, show that the computer models are faulty, and that the wild predictions of the world overheating past a "tipping point" are just that. Using pejorative dog whistle terms like "denier" or "xxxphobic" is simply a means developed primarily be the Left, to quickly close down and stifle debate.
Criticise my intelligence if you like, but could you be a Sloan Professor of Atmospherics at MIT? I'd love to see you debate with Richard Linzen who is also a sceptic. For someone who likes to quote Google Scholar, you don't seem to keep up with the climate science papers much. There are more and more publications appearing questioning the "accepted" science (if you can call computer models science).
Since there has been no appreciable heating for 17 years, I'd say it's more likely people like you who swallow the orthodoxy hook, line, and sinker who are out in the cold. Time will prove who is right.
2) Petition. Yes, I agree the petition is free speech and wouldn't try to stop it. My intention is to point out that it is simple scapegoating.
Only sheep sign petitions without considering the facts, which in our modern world of celebrity dancing and american idol and Kardashians few people seem to have time for.
I don't think someone should lose their job for criticising anything. Maybe it's my feminine side, or maybe I don't come from a heartless culture that fires people without cause like you do.
(Have you ever considered the irony of a land of the free, home of the brave, that ties medical benefits to employment and allows termination at will? What a way to generate a population of people afraid to speak their minds... I suppose that's why you insult people in discussion forums)
Boy, the invective. Did you actually read what he wrote?
3) the usual ad-homs. Maybe it's because of the harsh upbringing you N. Americans have that teach you how to bully people... did you get stuffed in your locker, or did you stuff some other poor kid in his?
You criticise my apparent lack of intelligence, but you (mainly) and sfem (some) lose no opportunity to be insulting, aggressive and generally exhibit all the nasty masculine traits which make me wonder why the hell you want to grow breasts.
I give dispassionate opinions (or try to) but you give insults.
Even the quotation is completely out of context.
My point, if you could be bothered to follow it, is that this was a tragedy in the making. If Littlejohn had not lifted up his pen, it would still have happened. To fire Littlejohn is to miss the point entirely, and it would do nothing to stop further tragedies.
You know precious little of the culture here, but I do, and I say it was completely predictable that this would hit the newspapers.
The local rag had it before Littlejohn, the hordes of reporters which caused the damage picked it up from there, and that was the point of that quote of mine: "they might have warned the teacher that the parents may have had a bad reaction." which you somehow find controversial (and I don't see the controversy in stating a fact).
If Meadows had been given realistic advice, instead of encouragement from arrogant activists with nothing but contempt for people of the "old morality", she would still be alive now. That's what O'Neill was getting at. That poor person's suicide does wonders for "the cause". Getting her to transition at school, if successful, would have been a real coup for "the cause". The reality is that she was a pawn in a left-wing political game.
Much as you dislike it, I'm more interested in advice that keeps people alive.
Much as you dislike it, if she had moved schools, ironically as Littlejohn suggested, this would have been the better course, not for a life without teaching, but to avoid the "culture shock" on the kids, the event would not have been newsworthy, and it was the newsworthiness that likely killed her.
I think that the activists that encouraged this ground-breaking move rather than advising caution also have a degree of responsibility for this tragedy, but no one is suggesting that they be punished.
That's my opinion, and if you don't like it, you can have a rat's ass.
Regards
Bryony