The Age of Warming

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Xombie' post='635966' date='Feb 26 2008, 05:12 PM']I could care less how you think you should post; if you want to be a shrew, be a shrew. My only issue is that once you are confronted with empirical data, and the theories that are supported by it, that does not follow your 'team's' viewpoint, you act like a child who has been refused a toy; alot of namecalling and shouting, yet no substance to validate yourself or your argument. A forum, by it's definition, is a place for free exchange of ideas; some that may not be agreeable to another, yet should be treated with the proper decorum. If you want to spout off with no one questioning your stances, create a blog and offer no response links. Otherwise, treat people with respect when they respectfully disagree with you.[/quote]
This is what I should have said. Thanks for being concise where I was vague.

[|Bunghole|]

And Scarlet, telling me to "grow a set" is another example of the childish tactics that you use when there is serious opposition to your POV. For the record, I'm undecided on the gravity of the impact of global warming, as I think the data is yet incomplete.
Also, I have very thick skin, and I am not trying to tell you how to post. What I AM saying is that while I respect your POV, if I happen to disagree with you (which I haven't really), you shouldn't engage in belittlement just because you can or because you believe you're on some kind of moral high ground while the rest of us "just don't get it".
I know I am not alone on this, I think you bring substance and debate to the board, but you have a soapbox that you need to climb off of when you are presented with opposing ideas.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Xombie' post='635966' date='Feb 26 2008, 06:12 PM']I could care less how you think you should post; if you want to be a shrew, be a shrew. My only issue is that once you are confronted with empirical data, and the theories that are supported by it, that does not follow your 'team's' viewpoint, you act like a child who has been refused a toy; alot of namecalling and shouting, yet no substance to validate yourself or your argument. A forum, by it's definition, is a place for free exchange of ideas; some that may not be agreeable to another, yet should be treated with the proper decorum. If you want to spout off with no one questioning your stances, create a blog and offer no response links. Otherwise, treat people with respect when they respectfully disagree with you.[/quote]

The funny thing is this post refers to a few of the people on this board who are self proclaimed "thinkers" and the so called "educated" group. I guess they should take more classes on tact in college.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='636008' date='Feb 26 2008, 08:58 PM']The funny thing is this post refers to a few of the people on this board who are self proclaimed "thinkers" and the so called "educated" group. I guess they should take more classes on tact in college.[/quote]

[url="http://search1.gmu.edu/search?q=tact+101&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&client=mason_test&ud=1&site=mason_test&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=mason_test"]Tact 101[/url]

Damn it isnt offered.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='636029' date='Feb 26 2008, 09:30 PM'][url="http://search1.gmu.edu/search?q=tact+101&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&client=mason_test&ud=1&site=mason_test&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=mason_test"]Tact 101[/url]

Damn it isnt offered.

[/quote]

[ScarletKnight]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='635951' date='Feb 26 2008, 04:54 PM']you should review your posts and what is being said better:

you said: [i]Life shouldn't be just working 80 hours a week to eek out an existence...[b]I think we owe ourselves more substance in life than that[/b].[/i]

i said: [i]What[s] is [/s](should have been if ) people WANT to work 80 hours a week? is it up to you to decide whether they should be able to or not?[/i]

so when you say in this post: [i]I was simply saying that if a person feels the need to work 80 hours a week that is there choice, but it shouldn't be a requirement of people. Someone shouldn't have to work 80 hours a week just to sustain themselves and that gets into the argument of governmental control over wages and so forth.[/i]

you are full of shit... That wasn't your original point... you clearly said "i think we owe ourselves more substance in life than that." yet here, your tune has changed to "it shouldn't be a requirement"... Is it a requirement? Where did anyone require that? I even emphasized the word WANT to work 80 hours, but somehow you still fucked that up...

so grow a set of tits [/quote]

I am not sure how you are pulling what you are pulling out of my posts but I will explain myself again.

First of all, to say that we owe it to ourselves to have more substance in life is not really a negative comment. I'll expand that sentence.....For those within this country whom are forced to work 2-3 or more jobs and spend most of their time trying to sustain themselves, they should be able to have more time in life to do more than just work to eat and to have a house over their head. The same goes for everyone. A persons worth shouldn't be based on how many hours a day they work (whatever that may be for them). American's work the most out of those in any other country. This isn't out of the want to work these hours, its out of the need. I personally do not want to have to work 80 hours a week which would leave me with no time to volunteer, take care of my family, have children, ect. If you mean to tell me that there is something wrong with this then thats your own opinion but I suppose many might agree with me.

Secondly, that is not to say that someone shouldn't be able to work 80 hours a week if they want to. No where in my statement is that insinuated. Rather all I am saying is that it shouldn't be a necessity. Not to mention 80 hours a week may be an exaggeration, but it isn't one by far. Professionals and those trying to establish themselves have to dedicate their lives to get anywhere. A talented young lawyer who accidently gets pregnant will no longer be as valuable to her law firm because she won't be able to dedicate her life to her work. Thus, her career will suffer. It seems to me that for the benefit of everyone, Americans could use a little vacation time. Ever here of flexi-time and paid leave legislation? This is the type of stuff I am referring to.

Saying that americans owe it to themselves to add substance to their lives refers to the fact that most jobs do not have substance and thats not at the fault of the people working these jobs. Its just the truth of the matter and if you are working a job you feel is worthless whether it pays tons of money or not, you probably want to look for some things to do that feels meaningfull like be with your family...ect. How are you supposed to do that if your working 80 hours a week? What is wrong with this? How does this translate into me hating on people who work 80 hours a week? It makes no sense to me.

Using "like a work horse" refers to everyone doing what they have to do. A work horse doesn't have a choice in what it does, those who it is working for make that choice...is this getting any clearer? So what I was insinuating was.....for those whom disagree with this, they can continue to be like the work horse and continue doing what they are told to do.

Its not my decision how many hours a week a person wants to work, and to be honest not many people have the choice to make that decision. So, to say "what if people want to work those hours" almost serves no point. When there is an option then maybe we can speak in these terms....and of course I am not saying that this happend with EVERYONE because I am sure that you can throw out a few examples of people who don't work many hours and have lots of money for free time, this concerns me not (and again lets keep in mind 80 hours may seem like an exaggeration).

Did I cover all my angles for one sentence? Or is there something else that can be read into what I am saying that I should clarify?

AND to answer to why would I get angry at your previous post...because you were insinuating that I was saying something that I was not. To BOLD want only made it seem all the more serious.

The funniest thing of this is that I can anticipate your comments before you even say them...."grow a set" you don't think I put that with intention? As if I did not know the reaction I was going to get? Please, I can have tact where tact is due. Lets not pretend I am the only one in here with "rude" posting behaviors. Not to mention you are opening a pandoras box by talking about internet edicit. If what I am posting is so offensive then I think we ought to monitor some other things being posted.

A while back there was a thread about censorship, were you one of those in favor of getting rid of it? I can't remember. Anyway, the point being is that noncensorship doesn't include being politically correct. You expect me to be nice for what reason exactly? Am I supposed to not ruffle any feathers? Why? Should I go on in agreement with everyone for the sake of agreeing with everyone? So my posts are strong, but they are not meant to offend personally.

How many pages have we been going on and on on this thread? How about the other two I stopped posting in, has there been any posts lately?

Sometimes nicey nicey boring boring same same is really lame. There are a few people "ganging" up on me and yet I still stick around when I could easily call it a day. Really, who would you hate if you had me not to hate? You must find some entertainment in this all... Perhaps you've felt a boost of morale because you are putting some bitch in her place and teaching her about tact, some personal gratification? Feeling smart with your comments?

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='ScarletKnight' post='636065' date='Feb 26 2008, 11:26 PM']I am not sure how you are pulling what you are pulling out of my posts but I will explain myself again.

First of all, to say that we owe it to ourselves to have more substance in life is not really a negative comment. I'll expand that sentence.....For those within this country whom are forced to work 2-3 or more jobs and spend most of their time trying to sustain themselves, they should be able to have more time in life to do more than just work to eat and to have a house over their head. The same goes for everyone. A persons worth shouldn't be based on how many hours a day they work (whatever that may be for them). American's work the most out of those in any other country. This isn't out of the want to work these hours, its out of the need. I personally do not want to have to work 80 hours a week which would leave me with no time to volunteer, take care of my family, have children, ect. If you mean to tell me that there is something wrong with this then thats your own opinion but I suppose many might agree with me.

Secondly, that is not to say that someone shouldn't be able to work 80 hours a week if they want to. No where in my statement is that insinuated. Rather all I am saying is that it shouldn't be a necessity. Not to mention 80 hours a week may be an exaggeration, but it isn't one by far. Professionals and those trying to establish themselves have to dedicate their lives to get anywhere. A talented young lawyer who accidently gets pregnant will no longer be as valuable to her law firm because she won't be able to dedicate her life to her work. Thus, her career will suffer. It seems to me that for the benefit of everyone, Americans could use a little vacation time. Ever here of flexi-time and paid leave legislation? This is the type of stuff I am referring to.

Saying that americans owe it to themselves to add substance to their lives refers to the fact that most jobs do not have substance and thats not at the fault of the people working these jobs. Its just the truth of the matter and if you are working a job you feel is worthless whether it pays tons of money or not, you probably want to look for some things to do that feels meaningfull like be with your family...ect. How are you supposed to do that if your working 80 hours a week? What is wrong with this? How does this translate into me hating on people who work 80 hours a week? It makes no sense to me.

Using "like a work horse" refers to everyone doing what they have to do. A work horse doesn't have a choice in what it does, those who it is working for make that choice...is this getting any clearer? So what I was insinuating was.....for those whom disagree with this, they can continue to be like the work horse and continue doing what they are told to do.

Its not my decision how many hours a week a person wants to work, and to be honest not many people have the choice to make that decision. So, to say "what if people want to work those hours" almost serves no point. When there is an option then maybe we can speak in these terms....and of course I am not saying that this happend with EVERYONE because I am sure that you can throw out a few examples of people who don't work many hours and have lots of money for free time, this concerns me not (and again lets keep in mind 80 hours may seem like an exaggeration).

Did I cover all my angles for one sentence? Or is there something else that can be read into what I am saying that I should clarify?

AND to answer to why would I get angry at your previous post...because you were insinuating that I was saying something that I was not. To BOLD want only made it seem all the more serious.

The funniest thing of this is that I can anticipate your comments before you even say them...."grow a set" you don't think I put that with intention? As if I did not know the reaction I was going to get? Please, I[b] can have tact where tact is due[/b]. Lets not pretend I am the only one in here with "rude" posting behaviors. Not to mention you are opening a pandoras box by talking about internet edicit. If what I am posting is so offensive then I think we ought to monitor some other things being posted.

A while back there was a thread about censorship, were you one of those in favor of getting rid of it? I can't remember. Anyway, the point being is that noncensorship doesn't include being politically correct. You expect me to be nice for what reason exactly? Am I supposed to not ruffle any feathers? Why? Should I go on in agreement with everyone for the sake of agreeing with everyone? So my posts are strong, but they are not meant to offend personally.

How many pages have we been going on and on on this thread? How about the other two I stopped posting in, has there been any posts lately?

Sometimes nicey nicey boring boring same same is really lame. There are a few people "ganging" up on me and yet I still stick around when I could easily call it a day. Really, who would you hate if you had me not to hate? You must find some entertainment in this all... Perhaps you've felt a boost of morale because you are putting some bitch in her place and teaching her about tact, some personal gratification? Feeling smart with your comments?[/quote]
**sigh**
80 hour workweeks aren't a reality for me or anyone else I know, mostly a figment of imagination except when people are coupling non-living wage jobs together.
And tact? Are you serious?
I can say something outrageous in a "Caption Hillary Pic" thread which is obviously a joke thread, and you take exception to my reply (which was meant as a joke), but you fail to see the difference between that and your condescension in your "Global Warming" thread, which is admittedly an actuallly serious topic? And the fact that you belittle those that oppose your beliefs about an admittedly SERIOUS topic are beneath you and deserving of contempt?
DO you not see this?

[Xombie]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='636008' date='Feb 26 2008, 08:58 PM']The funny thing is this post refers to a few of the people on this board who are self proclaimed "thinkers" and the so called "educated" group. I guess they should take more classes on tact in college.[/quote]


The only person I was referring to was SK. Now, some other people have a tendency to act fairly the same way, but to those that do, I hope they realize that I am more than willing to listen to what they say, read the information they provide, weigh their opinion, and take a new view of a subject, hopefully... assuming they can offer what they have without being A) a smarmy, self-congratulating cock in the ass that offers nothing more quick jabs at others, B ) an unimaginative political/religious extremist who cannot come to grips with the novel theory that the 'other team' may have a valid ideal, theory, proposal, etc., etc. that is worthy of consideration, or C) someone that cannot release a grudge from an earlier disagreement from tainting a future conversation or debate.

[Xombie]

And as an interesting sidenote, the creator of The Weather Channel recently chastised the media for the cataclysmic spin that some media meteorologists have applied to the global warming theory, and challenged those who are ordered to pay for their 'carbon credit' to sue and force the issue to the courts to show the lack of evidence there is to back a human-driven global warming scenario...

You know, all things considered, the scientist that created The Weather Channel may just know a thing or two about climatology and meteorology.

[|Montana Bengal|]

[quote name='Xombie' post='640056' date='Mar 4 2008, 05:44 PM']And as an interesting sidenote, the creator of The Weather Channel recently chastised the media for the cataclysmic spin that some media meteorologists have applied to the global warming theory, and challenged those who are ordered to pay for their 'carbon credit' to sue and force the issue to the courts to show the lack of evidence there is to back a human-driven global warming scenario...

You know, all things considered, the scientist that created The Weather Channel may just know a thing or two about climatology and meteorology.[/quote]

Who is the creator of the Weather Channel anyway? Was it actually a scientist that created it?

[Xombie]

[quote name='Montana Bengal' post='640057' date='Mar 4 2008, 07:47 PM']Who is the creator of the Weather Channel anyway? Was it actually a scientist that created it?[/quote]


His name is John Coleman. He received his degree in meteorology from the University of Illinois.

[ScarletKnight]

[quote name='Xombie' post='636606' date='Feb 28 2008, 11:07 PM']The only person I was referring to was SK. Now, some other people have a tendency to act fairly the same way, but to those that do, I hope they realize that I am more than willing to listen to what they say, read the information they provide, weigh their opinion, and take a new view of a subject, hopefully... assuming they can offer what they have without being A) a smarmy, self-congratulating cock in the ass that offers nothing more quick jabs at others, B ) an unimaginative political/religious extremist who cannot come to grips with the novel theory that the 'other team' may have a valid ideal, theory, proposal, etc., etc. that is worthy of consideration, or C) someone that cannot release a grudge from an earlier disagreement from tainting a future conversation or debate.[/quote]

Perhaps I will make another nasty remark....who cares what you think anyway? Who cares what I think, this is of course a message board where virtually no one knows the other person in any real sense. You can't offend me by saying you won't take notice to my posts on a freaking message board about a football team. Please....perhaps if I were running for office your opinion might matter or make a difference but to me your merely an internet poster like the rest of us and that makes you no more special than the 12 year old that comes on to sites and posts things. That makes me no different either, its what you do outside of this that matters.

I don't claim to be an intelligent thinker either, this is so funny. Perhaps its the penis stuck in your own ass that has your eyesight messed up.

Too bad tho...I might have had a better night sleep if I knew you read and took my posts seriously.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='ScarletKnight' post='640128' date='Mar 4 2008, 10:42 PM']Perhaps its the penis stuck in your own ass that has your eyesight messed up.[/quote]

You just made xombie's day. Reminds me of an old joke:

Two competitive guys, on their way to the fishing hole, stop to take a piss midway on the bridge across the creek.

Competitive guy #1: Damn. Water's cold today.

Competitive guy #2: Deep, too.

Oh, and competitive Homer_Rice says: Rutgers goes down. UConn wins Big East. (Course, I said that last year and what happened in the BE tourney?!)

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='640145' date='Mar 4 2008, 11:22 PM']
You just made xombie's day. Reminds me of an old joke:

Two competitive guys, on their way to the fishing hole, stop to take a piss midway on the bridge across the creek.

Competitive guy #1: Damn. Water's cold today.

Competitive guy #2: Deep, too.

Oh, and competitive Homer_Rice says: Rutgers goes down. UConn wins Big East. (Course, I said that last year and what happened in the BE tourney?!)[/quote]

[Xombie]

[quote name='ScarletKnight' post='640128' date='Mar 4 2008, 10:42 PM']Perhaps its the penis stuck in your own ass that has your eyesight messed up.

Too bad tho...I might have had a better night sleep if I knew you read and took my posts seriously.[/quote]

Well, to the first point, it is my penis and I can choose to stick it where I want, and if I did not stick it up my ass, I wouldn't be able to wear shorts without drawing stares.

:hugg:

And to the second point, I did take your post seriously enough to post to it... If you would look at my post history, you would see my paltry number of posts in more than 8 months of being a member. I only post when there is a serious topic to discuss and I responded to yours with the intention of adding my 2 cents and the information that I had come across to make the discussion and subsequent debate a more well-rounded and enlightening experience for all who took time to read. You decided to post here with your views, realized that you couldn't compete with differing opinions and facts, and started to backpedal, quite badly, by calling names and trying to mitigate your failure by stating that, basically, starting this thread was a useless gesture on your part.

[Xombie]

And Bengalbacker, I actually have never seen Slingblade... Now, I really want to...

[BengalBacker]

[quote name='Xombie' post='640204' date='Mar 5 2008, 08:27 AM']And Bengalbacker, I actually have never seen Slingblade... Now, I really want to...[/quote]


One of my favorite movies.

[ScarletKnight]

[quote name='Xombie' post='640200' date='Mar 5 2008, 08:09 AM']Well, to the first point, it is my penis and I can choose to stick it where I want, and if I did not stick it up my ass, I wouldn't be able to wear shorts without drawing stares.

:hugg:

And to the second point, I did take your post seriously enough to post to it... If you would look at my post history, you would see my paltry number of posts in more than 8 months of being a member. I only post when there is a serious topic to discuss and I responded to yours with the intention of adding my 2 cents and the information that I had come across to make the discussion and subsequent debate a more well-rounded and enlightening experience for all who took time to read. You decided to post here with your views, realized that you couldn't compete with differing opinions and facts, and started to backpedal, quite badly, by calling names and trying to mitigate your failure by stating that, basically, starting this thread was a useless gesture on your part.[/quote]

Well you sort of hit the nail on the head. If I remember correctly I wasn't the first person to start making harsh comments or calling people names directly. I think I started to get frustrated after people told me I needed to learn how to read and I was like the eco-wacko people that they hated. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem worth trying to make a point when people read over what you have to say and insert what they think you are saying. Not to mention everyone seemed to be stroking eachothers egos and agreeing with everyone but me. Try and post in a thread where everyone disagrees with you constantly and tells you to admit that their side has some vaild points but will not look to your posts and do the same thing.

I find a lot of hypocrisy that I am told to see others views as valid when no one reproduces that with me and I am supposed to be nice but others won't catch any slack for being condicending or whatever else it is that I have been accused of.

In short, yes I did start calling names and saying things that were not geared toward the conversation, but really at what point am I supposed to continue on saying things when I am the lone ranger?

[Xombie]

[quote name='ScarletKnight' post='640465' date='Mar 5 2008, 04:31 PM']Well you sort of hit the nail on the head. If I remember correctly I wasn't the first person to start making harsh comments or calling people names directly. I think I started to get frustrated after people told me I needed to learn how to read and I was like the eco-wacko people that they hated. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem worth trying to make a point when people read over what you have to say and insert what they think you are saying. Not to mention everyone seemed to be stroking eachothers egos and agreeing with everyone but me. Try and post in a thread where everyone disagrees with you constantly and tells you to admit that their side has some vaild points but will not look to your posts and do the same thing.

I find a lot of hypocrisy that I am told to see others views as valid when no one reproduces that with me and I am supposed to be nice but others won't catch any slack for being condescending or whatever else it is that I have been accused of.

In short, yes I did start calling names and saying things that were not geared toward the conversation, but really at what point am I supposed to continue on saying things when I am the lone ranger?[/quote]

*shrugs* There is the rub, admittedly. When you are the only voice for your choir, it is an uphill effort to make sure you are heard, and to those who take cheap sots at you, I find them just as pathetic. But it always lends to the idea that maybe, just maybe, you are backing the wrong horse on a particular issue. For example, I see myself as an open-minded agnostic, but 10 years ago I was a diehard atheist... My years have granted me a bit of wisdom, and I realized I was nowhere near as smart as I thought I was and that brought me to the further realization that I simply know enough to come to grips that there are things that I simply couldn't and shouldn't know. A big reason of that is something that a lifelong friend told me, years before he became an Army Chaplain: Even if I truly believed that there was no God, I would look kinda dumb if I was wrong and had to debate the issue with St. Peter when I popped off...

But, it is nice to see that you are not simply a harpy for being a harpy's sake. Anyhoo, I respect the passion of your view in this regard and I honestly believe the science has done environmentalists wrong in this particular arena, as it would appear that the science was tainted by greed and politics, which left the people fighting what they perceived the good fight to be hanging in the wind. And I think that, quite possibly, you will find me on the different side of the aisle on some issue in the future, on this board, and quite possibly agreeing with you. Until then, find something to prove me wrong on this particular issue, and I will be the first to eat crow.