Text 31896, 395 rader
Skriven 2016-03-18 20:56:00 av Bill McGarrity (24089.2fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 31894 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Re: What kind of nonsense is this?
==========================================
-=> Lee Lofaso wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-


 LL>>> Since when is expressing an opinion about climate change grounds
 LL>>> for censorship or removal from fidonet?

 BM>> Did I not explain that above? 10-15 times spewing the same thing BM>over
 BM> and over again when the subject was dropped and was explained BM>to the
 BM> poster we'd not discuss it anymore?

 LL>> That's what Flat Earthers tried to tell Galileo.  But did it make
 LL>> them right?  By censoring someone whose views they disagreed with,
 LL>> Flat Earthers thought they could continue to fool the masses.  But
 LL>> the only ones they were deluding were themselves.

 BM> The old flat earth arguement.  Well, the views of those well over 600+
 LL> years
 BM> ago certainly has no bearing on what is happening today.

 LL> There is much we still do not understand today.  Especially about
 LL> the weather, how abruptly climate change can happen, and the reasons
 LL> why.

I beg to differ.... along with 93% of the climatologists around the world.


 BM> Concept maybe the same but as was discussed with him, he seems to confuse
 BM> weather with climate.

 LL> The climate is always changing.  Weather patterns shift, as well.
 LL> Man's activities certainly do affect the weather, given present
 LL> technology.  But climate change on a global scale may be due more
 LL> to natural causes/phenomena than man-made activities.

So you'd rather put your trust in phenomena that actual proof?  How the melting
of the polar ice cap's fresh water is slowing desalinizing the oceans causing
different cooling/heating paterns. 

 BM> We all know weather patterns will duplicate themselves as will the certain
 BM> effects of climate.  What was not understood was the extreme rate of
 LL> change
 BM> over a short period of time.  This is the key.  If indeed natural climate
 BM> patterns would effect inhabitants over a "x" period of time, there is
 LL> proof
 BM> that this "x" period is much shorter than previous periods.  There in lies
 BM> the problem....

 LL> The same conditions that exist today are those that existed 500 years
 LL> ago.  Do you remember what happened then?  What happened to the Incas?
 LL> What happened to the Aztecs?  What happened to the masses of Native
 LL> Americans who populated the Americas?

Yes, Europe desided to send it's settlers... bringing disease, greed and who
knows what else.  Had nothing to do with the natural selection of no one came. 
Same with climate.  It would go about it's normal sequence yet an outside
source (excessive C02) by increased fossil fuel usaeg along with the
destruction of the forests by man around the world are catalysts to the speed
on which these events are taking place.  Either scenario has to do with
man-made events.

 LL> Africans traveled to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus
 LL> set sail.  Chinese also made it to the Americas before Columbus.
 LL> As well as Vikings.  And yet look who won the prize.  Not the
 LL> Africans.  Not the Chinese.  Not the Native Americans, who were
 LL> forced to give up their own lands so others could stay.

 BM> man's insensitivity towards the very thing that gives us life.

 LL> We do not understand the weather, only the experience to realize
 LL> how it affects us.  The weatherman you see on tv is more of an
 LL> entertainer than a meteorologist, hired by a company to put on a
 LL> show.

You make the same mistake.  It's not weather we're concerned about.  Understand
the topic first before you comment.

 BM> He was explained this by a few of us yet he feels it's his duty to
 BM> consistanly harp on the fact it doesn't exist.

 LL> Nobody is denying that climate change does not exist.  The question
 LL> is, what is the main cause?  Is it that man is the main cause, or is
 LL> it nature that is the main cause?  Man has lived through glacial and
 LL> interglacial times.  Right now, we are between glacial periods.  How
 LL> long does it take to go from one period to another period?  It might
 LL> shock you to learn the truth.

100 years?  Look at the data since the industrial revolution and tell me if
that is normal change as far as climate is concerned.  It's a proven fact CO2
effects the atmosphere.  Extrapolate the period where the use of carbon based
fuels is at it's most as compared to when there was no usage and you'll get
your proof. 

 LL> Abrupt climate change.  That is the term that is used.  Do you know
 LL> what length of time that is?  Ten years.  Not more than ten years.

 LL> It has been eight thousand years of warm climate, the longest period
 LL> without an ice age since man has walked this earth.  How long do you
 LL> think we have left before the next ice age kicks in?

No one is argueing that.  It's the speed at which it's happening.  What is so
hard for you to understand that?

 BM> I for one said I was no longer going to discuss it even to the point he
 LL> was
 BM> to leave my name out of any further discussion.  He didn't.  His loss and
 BM> Ed's gain.

 LL> Ed is welcome to participate in joining the discussion.  Whether
 LL> here, or there, or everywhere is fine by me.

Good... but as I said, he doesn't need to explain himself as to his reasoning. 


 BM>>>> So tell me, where was the feed cut.

 LL>>>> Ask Ed.  He's the one who done it.

 BM>>> No, he banned Richardson from his board, which is his right BM>even if
 BM> it was for a hangnail.

 LL>>> That's what you keep telling me.  And every time I ask you to put
 LL>>> up or shut up, you keep your mouth shut.  So where's your evidence?
 LL>>> Where is your proof?  Does it exist?  Remember, you are the one who
 LL>>> told me the cock and bull story about Ed having a discussion with
 LL>>> Tim.  So prove it.  If you can.

 BM> Again, Ed is the only one who can tell you.

 LL> You made the claim.  You back it up.  If you can.

 LL> Do understand this - Ed was asked about this.  And Ed was not able
 LL> to back up any of what he had claimed.  IOW, Ed made it all up.

 LL> Check your Fidonews archives for May 2015.
 LL> Look for subject "Bad-Mouthed Sysop".
 LL> That is where you will find my message to Ed.
 LL> Posted for ALL to read.  Not censored, like
 LL> some sysops would prefer.

 BM> Being he was banned from Ed's system is proof enough there were words....

 LL> Guilt by accusation?  Pointing a finger at somebody and calling
 LL> them a bad person makes them a bad person?  Since when does a sysop
 LL> get the right to make such pronouncements?  Oh, a sysop can say
 LL> whatever the fuck he/she wants to say.  But saying so does not make
 LL> it so.  Even a man with as small an intellect as yours should
 LL> understand that.

Lee, again, you try and stretch your limited views on everyone in a most
annoying manner.  Fact remains, Richardson can no longer post on Ed's system,
whether the reasoning was he said something off color, told him to have a
shitty day or Ed woke up one morning and said fuck it... Richardson is gone. 
Ed pays the bills.. it's his system. In your limited intellect how hard is that
for you to understand.  If Richardson doesn't want to be scrutinized by others,
then he should start his own system.  End of story.

 BM> so the burden of proof lies in your court to prove this "ban" was unjust.

 LL> The burden of proof lies in the one who made the accusation.
 LL> Ed made the original accusation, and when challenged on the matter
 LL> was unable to substantiate/support his claim.  You echoed Ed's
 LL> accusation, and when challenged on the matter was also unable to
 LL> substantiate/support that claim.

Lee, you're dislusional.  Ed doesn't have to give jack shit to any user.  They
are there at his choice.  If he feels they no longer should have access, then
who are you to say they're wrong.  You're getting to sound like Trump.  Have
you died your hair orange lately?

 BM> As I said, Ed has every right to do what he wants with his system.

 LL> Nobody is questioning a sysop's right to allow or not to allow
 LL> others to use their system.  Ed made a claim that he was unable
 LL> to substantiate/support.  You made a claim that you were unable
 LL> to substantiate/support.  The least you could do is to own up
 LL> to your mistake.

Mistake?  Does Richardson have access to Ed's system? If I made the statement
Richardson was booted and poof, he appeared using Ed's system then yes, I'd
retract my statement.  The fact remains, the proof is the fact he can't access
Ed's system.  End of story... your logis is flawed.

 BM>> Again, for the thrid time, ask Ed why.

 LL>> You made the claim.  You support it, and substantiate it, if you can.
 LL>> Otherwise, why should I, or anybody else, believe you (or Ed)?

 BM> Doesn't matter what you or I believe.

 LL> You made the claim.  Tim denies it (I read his post to you on the
 LL> matter in another echo).  You have been unable to support/substantiate
 LL> your claim.  Did you, like Ed, make it all up?  Sure seems like it.

Are you a moron?  Can Richardson access Ed's system?  

 BM> The fact is Ed booted Richardson for a justified reason.

 LL> Ed was not able to substantiate/support his wild claim.
 LL> You have not been able to substantiate/support your wild claim.
 LL> In fact, Tim has called you a "bald-faced liar" - to your face.
 LL> Would you like me to post Tim's message to you here, in this echo?

 BM> You may not agree with his easoning but that's just the way
 BM> many things are in life.... out of your control.

 LL> A sysop does not need a reason to drop a user(s) from his/her
 LL> system.  If a reason is given, it has to be a good one.

OK... reread your above statement. The reason could be Ed woke up with a
headache.  Who cares.  Your blindness to the outcome is based on stupidity...
get over your Don Quixote personna.

 LL> If a sysop is unable to support/substantiate the reason given,
 LL> others will suspect the sysop of making it all up.  And for good
 LL> reason.

Any reason is a good reason... 

 LL> I call it the bartender's rule.

I call it the owner's rule... bartenders can be fired.

 BM>> It's his system and as I said, he can do whatever he wants with it.

 LL>> Just because he can doesn't mean he should.  If an individual claims
 LL>> to be in favor of free speech and acts in a far different manner, then
 LL>> that individual has shown the world that he/she is not to be believed
 LL>> or trusted.

 BM> You keep going back to free speech.

 LL> Everybody has the right to make an ass out of themselves.

 BM> Are you discussing moderation or banning?

 LL> "It is totally up to Ross as to what users he allows access
 LL> to his system." - Janis Kracht, director of zone 1

You'll have to discuss that with Janis...

 BM> Free speech has it limitations as you've always stated.

 LL> That free speech limited by Janis' lapdog, noted above.

Again, talk to Janis...

 BM> I'm sure Ed is a reasonable man and if a discussion took place between Ed
 BM> and Richardson that was somewhat civil, he's still be posting on Ed's
 BM> board.

 LL> Tim Richardson has called you a "bald-faced liar" - in public.

Richardson is an ass... and I really don't care what he called me as he's
nothing.  He maybe the world to you and if that's the case, rememeber the old
statement... lie with dogs with fleas... don't be surprised if you have them as
well. 

 BM> He's not, therefore it can be said that the meeting of the minds didn't go
 BM> very well for Richardson.

 LL> You (and Ed) made the claim that Tim sent a nasty email/netmail
 LL> to Ed.  Tim denies it, and has called you (and Ed by implication)
 LL> a "bald-faced liar".  Neither you nor Ed have ever been able to
 LL> substantiate/support your claim.

 LL> The burden of proof is on those who made the claim.  That would
 LL> be you (and Ed).  So.  Show me the money, honey.  If it exists.

 BM>> What part of that do you not understand?

 LL>> You made a claim, and failed to substantiate/support that claim.

 BM> is Richardson posting on Ed's board?

 LL> Irrelevant.

In your mind maybe.  It's a fact.

 BM> Not sure you need anything more than that....

 LL> You made the claim that Tim sent Ed a nasty email/netmail.
 LL> Show me the money, honey.  If it exists.

Again, ask Ed.  Send him netmail. 

 BM> but YMMV.

 LL> In other words, you made it all up.

Prove it?

 BM> I suggest you speak to Ed as to the full reasoning why.

 LL> I did.  And Ed was unable to substantiate/support his claim.

 BM> As they say, you want the right answer, go to the horse's mouth.

 LL> I did.  And Ed was unable to substantiate/support his claim.

I see no proof of that.  Could be just your word to protect Richardson... 

 LL>> I asked you to back up your claim with evidence/proof.  You have
 LL>> been unable to do so.  That tells me you are either made it all
 LL>> up, or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Lee, what part of Richardson not being able to access Ed's system do you not
understand? Are you really that stupid?

 BM> Is he posting on Ed's board?

 LL> Irrelevent.

 BM> That's all the proof I need.

 LL> That Ed Koon is acting as a censor for Ross Cassell and Janis Kracht.

 BM> Maybe you need more.  Ask Ed.

 LL> I did.  And Ed was unable to substantiate/support his claim.

 BM>>>> I'm thinking you're just imagining it in your head.

 BM>> Mmmm... don't think so but it's your fantasy...

 LL>> You have no idea what my fantasy is or might be.
 LL>> Hell, I do not even know myself.  But I will when
 LL>> I find it.  Kind of like shangri-la.  I will know
 LL>> when I find it ...

 BM> When it comes to the DEBATE echo, I have a feeling you'll be looking for a
 BM> long time.

 LL> Folks do not go to shangri-la in order to debate ...

 BM>>> You highly complained when Roger was posting rules in FIDONEWS....

 LL>>> Roger is not the moderator.

 BM>>> yet you seem it's ok for you to do it in someone elses echo.

 LL>>> The echo belongs to everybody.

 BM>> Then why did you feel it necessary to put your name on it?

 LL>> I put everybody's name on it.

 BM> Nope... when you added your name as moderator (which is questionable) you
 BM> placed a restriction on it.

 LL> All participants are in effect moderators of the echo.  As such,
 LL> it is not necessary to name anybody in particular.  By choosing to
 LL> be a participant, one automatically becomes a moderator.  See how
 LL> that works?  Kinda neat.  You should try it sometime.

The term Moderate is in itself can be used as a restriction. So I guess you're
little experiment about free speech just shit the bed.

 LL>>> The ethics of fidonet.  That would make a really neat title
 LL>>> for a psychostudy.  It could even earn me a PhD.  Somewhere.
 LL>>> Worked for Wayne Chirnside, who earned hers that way ...

 BM>> Go for it....

 LL>> I already have my certificate.

 BM> You're not putting that knowledge to very good use then... oh well.

 LL> Who said anything about knowledge?

Obviously not you if you're continuing this rediculous discussion regarding
Richardson.  For me I've given you all the answers you need to come to a
deductive conclusion.  Richardson can't access Ed's system for whatever reason
Ed deemed necessary.  You, Richardson, myself or the rest of Fidonet has any
say in that decision.  

I'm done.  You've have my answer, over and over I must add.... don't like it..
too bad.  You'll get over it.  Grab your spoon and rip into some jumbayla,
it'll ease the pain.


--

Bill

Telnet: tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
FTP: ftp.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:2121
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


... Look Twice... Save a Life!!! Motorcycles are Everywhere!!!
=== MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.33-Win32
 * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)