Gore Refuses to take The Pledge

I only ask that you try to converse with me in your own words. You KNOW that I could inundate this thread with link after link after link that all make the case for human involvement in global warming. Why have a battle of cut and paste? why not try to argue with ME using YOUR own words and I will use my own words to argue my points?

I never enven thought to ask, why do you insist upon that? Wy do you feel the way you want to debate is the only way to debate? I have a guess, but I'll let you answer.
 
I never enven thought to ask, why do you insist upon that? Wy do you feel the way you want to debate is the only way to debate? I have a guess, but I'll let you answer.

In the first few weeks of my time on this site, I read every cut and paste piece that RSR ever posted. And I would comment upon them, and ask him clarifying questions about them...and in response, he would do one of two things: 1. he would respond by cutting and pasting yet another article or 2. he would make some one liner about dems or libs wanting to surrender or loving terrorists. He would NEVER respond with any original thought to any of my comments and he would NEVER answer any of my questions, excpet by cuttng and pasting more stuff.... And I would respond with more comments and more questions and he would repeat steps 1. or 2. over and over and over again. I began to realize that all he ever did was go find articles from the web, and the vast majority of them were from right leaning sites and most of THEM were op-ed pieces.

I think it is silly to cut and paste an op-ed piece and substitute that for your own thoughts, and further to imply and assume that the opinion expressed in YOUR article is the unblemished truth with all the unquestionable authority of the tablets from Mount Sinai. I could, if I so chose, go spend my time scouring the web for articles and editorials in support of MY positions and MY beliefs, and I could cut and paste the text of MY article in response to RSR's articles, and so we would go.... neither of us doing much thinking and really only facilitating this other-worldly virtual cyber debate betwen conservative and liberal editorial writers who would never know they were debating one another. weird.

If RSR wants to cut and paste articles all day and paste them in multiple threads spamming this site 24/7, that is certainly his prerogative.....
I don't have to facilitate it and I CERTAINLY don't have to ENABLE it.

Maybe you would enjoy cutting and pasting all day with RSR.... I think that would be just great. I really have no desire to participate.

Did that answer your question?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM
Did that answer your question?

sort of. It brings to light what the real issue is. If you're here to debate and possibly even be persuded by an alternative view then you're both probably banging your head against the wall. RSR can not be persuaded that much is pretty clear. If an opinion or even piece of data doesn't fit in with his beliefs it won't be acknowledged and will be labeled liberal. So if your goal is to persuade there is absolutely no point in debating him. Again I say this because I and I think others get tired of seeing pages and pages of you two going back and forth.

I also believe though that you are guilty of the same thing. You essentially said yourself that since he only posts opinion pieces from the right wing there is nothing you can learn. As I've said before whether people admit it or not, there is truth in opinion. To me that makes pretty much everything at the very least worth reading. that doesn't mean you are required to respond to it. It does mean that you should always ask yourself whether there is any validity to what you just read. I think you skip over that part because I believe the first thing that goes through your head is "how can I prove this wrong".
 
In the first few weeks of my time on this site, I read every cut and paste piece that RSR ever posted. And I would comment upon them, and ask him clarifying questions about them...and in response, he would do one of two things: 1. he would respond by cutting and pasting yet another article or 2. he would make some one liner about dems or libs wanting to surrender or loving terrorists. He would NEVER respond with any original thought to any of my comments and he would NEVER answer any of my questions, excpet by cuttng and pasting more stuff.... And I would respond with more comments and more questions and he would repeat steps 1. or 2. over and over and over again. I began to realize that all he ever did was go find articles from the web, and the vast majority of them were from right leaning sites and most of THEM were op-ed pieces.

I think it is silly to cut and paste an op-ed piece and substitute that for your own thoughts, and further to imply and assume that the opinion expressed in YOUR article is the unblemished truth with all the unquestionable authority of the tablets from Mount Sinai. I could, if I so chose, go spend my time scouring the web for articles and editorials in support of MY positions and MY beliefs, and I could cut and paste the text of MY article in response to RSR's articles, and so we would go.... neither of us doing much thinking and really only facilitating this other-worldly virtual cyber debate betwen conservative and liberal editorial writers who would never know they were debating one another. weird.

If RSR wants to cut and paste articles all day and paste them in multiple threads spamming this site 24/7, that is certainly his prerogative.....
I don't have to facilitate it and I CERTAINLY don't have to ENABLE it.

Maybe you would enjoy cutting and pasting all day with RSR.... I think that would be just great. I really have no desire to participate.

Did that answer your question?

Truth hurts, eh?
 
sort of. It brings to light what the real issue is. If you're here to debate and possibly even be persuded by an alternative view then you're both probably banging your head against the wall. RSR can not be persuaded that much is pretty clear. If an opinion or even piece of data doesn't fit in with his beliefs it won't be acknowledged and will be labeled liberal. So if your goal is to persuade there is absolutely no point in debating him. Again I say this because I and I think others get tired of seeing pages and pages of you two going back and forth.

I also believe though that you are guilty of the same thing. You essentially said yourself that since he only posts opinion pieces from the right wing there is nothing you can learn. As I've said before whether people admit it or not, there is truth in opinion. To me that makes pretty much everything at the very least worth reading. that doesn't mean you are required to respond to it. It does mean that you should always ask yourself whether there is any validity to what you just read. I think you skip over that part because I believe the first thing that goes through your head is "how can I prove this wrong".

regarding the bolded sentence...I really take issue with your inaccurate paraphrasing of my words prefaced by "you essentially said..."....I ESSENTIALLY SAID no such thing. I said that, in the beginning, I had taken the time to read all of his posts and I had taken the time to thoughtfully and articulately respond to them and to question them and tried - unsuccessfully - to get him to respond back and to answer my questions... to which he would "respond" by merely posting yet another cut and paste piece. I grew tired of that. I have given up attempting to carry on a conversation with him... I have told him what it would take to reinitiate such a conversation. I am sorry that I have bored you with pages and pages of trying to get him to converse. It won't happen again until such time as he, himself, is willing to converse. OK?
 
regarding the bolded sentence...I really take issue with your inaccurate paraphrasing of my words prefaced by "you essentially said..."....I ESSENTIALLY SAID no such thing. I said that, in the beginning, I had taken the time to read all of his posts and I had taken the time to thoughtfully and articulately respond to them and to question them and tried - unsuccessfully - to get him to respond back and to answer my questions... to which he would "respond" by merely posting yet another cut and paste piece. I grew tired of that. I have given up attempting to carry on a conversation with him... I have told him what it would take to reinitiate such a conversation. I am sorry that I have bored you with pages and pages of trying to get him to converse. It won't happen again until such time as he, himself, is willing to converse. OK?

We all know you grow tired of facts

I tried to debate you on several topics - but you fled the thread when you could not counter my points
 
We all know you grow tired of facts

I tried to debate you on several topics - but you fled the thread when you could not counter my points

liar. answer the questions that I raised about your own statements.... you never answered them. If you would like to, I would gladly resume a discussion with you..... your one sided approach where you get to say shit and ask me all sorts of questions but never have to answer any is not worth it.
 
liar. answer the questions that I raised about your own statements.... you never answered them. If you would like to, I would gladly resume a discussion with you..... your one sided approach where you get to say shit and ask me all sorts of questions but never have to answer any is not worth it.

Carbon offsets, Al's natural gas and private jet use, and how other scientists have said global warming is not a major problem

I am one sided? You are the biggest ass kissing Dem on this board - and you ignore anything that goes against your party
 
are you really that thick? answer my questions and we will resume discussions. Until then, leave me the fuck alone.... you are an annoying newsbot who is incapable of intelligent thought and conversation...

I really don't WANT to put you back on ignore, because I will never know if you DO answer my questions, but if you continue to pester me and not acknowledge my issue with you, I will have no other recourse.
 
are you really that thick? answer my questions and we will resume discussions. Until then, leave me the fuck alone.... you are an annoying newsbot who is incapable of intelligent thought and conversation...

I really don't WANT to put you back on ignore, because I will never know if you DO answer my questions, but if you continue to pester me and not acknowledge my issue with you, I will have no other recourse.

So much for want to have a "discussion"
 
So much for want to have a "discussion"


you KNOW what you need to do in order to resume that discussion. I have asked you many many questions and you have not answered them. When and if you do, we will continue. now please.... just deal with that or go annoy someone else.
 
you KNOW what you need to do in order to resume that discussion. I have asked you many many questions and you have not answered them. When and if you do, we will continue. now please.... just deal with that or go annoy someone else.

Testy as usual

One can have a discussion with you as long as you dictate how the discussion will take place
 
no...RSR...the ball is in your court...I have asked you many questions that arose from statements that you have made. you consistently and adamantly refused to answer them. THere are thirty balls lying on the ground in your court. Pick them up, one at a time....answer them in your own words...defend your own previous assertions, and then we can talk. Please.... don't drag this out any further. either answer the questions that I posed to you, or don't....but quit the sniping if you chose the latter option and go bother someone else.
 
no...RSR...the ball is in your court...I have asked you many questions that arose from statements that you have made. you consistently and adamantly refused to answer them. THere are thirty balls lying on the ground in your court. Pick them up, one at a time....answer them in your own words...defend your own previous assertions, and then we can talk. Please.... don't drag this out any further. either answer the questions that I posed to you, or don't....but quit the sniping if you chose the latter option and go bother someone else.

OK- still ducking

I understand
 
regarding the bolded sentence...I really take issue with your inaccurate paraphrasing of my words prefaced by "you essentially said..."....I ESSENTIALLY SAID no such thing. I said that, in the beginning, I had taken the time to read all of his posts and I had taken the time to thoughtfully and articulately respond to them and to question them and tried - unsuccessfully - to get him to respond back and to answer my questions... to which he would "respond" by merely posting yet another cut and paste piece. I grew tired of that. I have given up attempting to carry on a conversation with him... I have told him what it would take to reinitiate such a conversation. I am sorry that I have bored you with pages and pages of trying to get him to converse. It won't happen again until such time as he, himself, is willing to converse. OK?

And that was the point I made later on. As far as he is concerned, in the end it doesn't matter if he cuts and pastes or not. He isn't going to change and despite saying that you won't converse with him anymore there have been at leat a dozen posts just b/t the two of you since my last one.
 
And that was the point I made later on. As far as he is concerned, in the end it doesn't matter if he cuts and pastes or not. He isn't going to change and despite saying that you won't converse with him anymore there have been at leat a dozen posts just b/t the two of you since my last one.

fine...but I will continue to take issue with your suggesting that I said there was nothing for ME to learn from his cut and paste diatribes...only that I had grown weary of it exclusively in lieu of actual original thought. I have read much of what he has cut and pasted and have made substantive comments about it.... now I won't.... and that is not because I feel as if there is nothing to learn...only that I find no interest in conversing with an unthinking "bot". If he won't enter into any discussion about the things he posts, why post them? And if he continues to post them, why then continue to comment upon them?

On another board, they have a bot that is called Newsboy and "he" posts articles that engender communications between people..."he" doesn't keep tossing other articles into the thread that he starts, however, and is not programmed to have an annoying slanted perspective. Any conversation with RSR since our last post has been a continuation of my pleading with him to display his own intellect instead of others.
 
fine...but I will continue to take issue with your suggesting that I said there was nothing for ME to learn from his cut and paste diatribes...only that I had grown weary of it exclusively in lieu of actual original thought. I have read much of what he has cut and pasted and have made substantive comments about it.... now I won't.... and that is not because I feel as if there is nothing to learn...only that I find no interest in conversing with an unthinking "bot". If he won't enter into any discussion about the things he posts, why post them? And if he continues to post them, why then continue to comment upon them?

On another board, they have a bot that is called Newsboy and "he" posts articles that engender communications between people..."he" doesn't keep tossing other articles into the thread that he starts, however, and is not programmed to have an annoying slanted perspective. Any conversation with RSR since our last post has been a continuation of my pleading with him to display his own intellect instead of others.



Boy does this sound familiar...............................


Obama Condemns Big and Fast Gas Guzzlers, But Drives Hemi V8 Sedan

The religion of the left seems to be environmentalism, and the everyone knows what happens when religious figures on the right are exposed as hypocrites. Ted Haggard, Jim Baker and others have claimed to stand for one thing and privately lived a life that conflicted with their stated beliefs, and the media covered it non-stop. In contrast, the media ignore that the darling of the Democratic presidential candidates has again been nailed as an environmental hypocrite.

Barack Obama was outed as an SUV driver in 2006, who said at the same time, "the blame for the world's higher temperature rests on gas guzzling vehicles." Now, a year later, the Detroit Free Press' on-line site Freep.com reported similar contradictory behavior today and stated, "his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes."

http://newsbusters.org/node/12703
 
no...RSR...the ball is in your court...I have asked you many questions that arose from statements that you have made. you consistently and adamantly refused to answer them. THere are thirty balls lying on the ground in your court. Pick them up, one at a time....answer them in your own words...defend your own previous assertions, and then we can talk. Please.... don't drag this out any further. either answer the questions that I posed to you, or don't....but quit the sniping if you chose the latter option and go bother someone else.

Polar Bear Baby Boom Occurring in Eastern Arctic, Will Media Notice?
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 11, 2007 - 14:42.
This one is really too funny, folks, and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects be properly stowed (grateful and humorous h/t to NBer dscott).

Despite all the carping and whining by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of sycophant devotees about global warming killing polar bears, there is actually a baby boom occurring in this species in Canada’s eastern Arctic.

As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):

Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.

For those keeping score, that’s an almost 150 percent increase in two decades.

The article continued:

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a ... lot more bears," biologist Mitchell Taylor told the Nunatsiaq News of Iqaluit in the Arctic territory of Nunavut. Earlier, in a long telephone conversation, Dr. Taylor explained his conviction that threats to polar bears from global warming are exaggerated and that their numbers are increasing. He has studied the animals for the Nunavut government for two decades.

Hmmm. So, a local biologist that has studied polar bears for two decades says their population is increasing. How marvelous.

Similarly delicious was how the Monitor took issue with the now famous picture of polar bears floating on an ice floe:

The study by Taylor and his team has received widespread media coverage in Canada, shaking the image of the polar bear as endangered. There are even questions about the famous photograph of a polar bear adrift on what looks like an isolated and melting ice floe. Even scientists who firmly believe that the bears are under threat from climate change say the picture doesn't tell the whole truth.

Polar bears often travel on ice floes, and they can swim "easily" in open water for 60 miles, according to [Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union]. "Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multiyear ice. To me that picture looked a little fudged," he says. "But some colleagues of mine said it was legit."

Finally, the Monitor addressed what people who actually live in the Arctic are saying about the polar bear population:

Inuit hunters make their own estimates of the polar bear population based on the number of animals they encounter on their travels. Taylor says scientists have ignored the anecdotal evidence of the Inuit, who say bear numbers were rising. Inuits also report more polar bears wandering into their towns and villages, where they are a threat to children.

"I'm pretty sure the numbers [of polar bears] are climbing," says Pitselak Pudlat, an Inuit hunter and manager of the Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Organization at Cape Dorset, Baffin Island. "During the winter there were polar bears coming into town." His community is north of the bear population studied by Taylor.

Why should we care what he or the Nunavut biologist say when people in Hollywood like Leonardo DiCaprio, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David say otherwise?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
 

Forum List

Back
Top