Forum thoughts and comments.

[Rob99T]

I would be overjoyed if you could name one.

Overjoyed? Would that overjoyment pass the level of scrutiny to where it would become simply "joy" if a concensus of scientist declared it so? Would overjoyment then become an impossible state after that? Or would further states of overjoyment at that point just continue to raise the level of mere"joy" to match what the concensus decreed? I would not want to do that to you - Steve.

Seriously, Rob, I've explained this to you many times before. I'm beginning to think you are deliberately not getting it.

Steve - your continued explanations of the way things should be or as they have been in the scientific world of times past dont necessarily make them that way today. I think your theory is accecptable but your application of it to today's Global Warming political agenda is whacked. It shouldnt be and it is unfortunate that it is - but being so - the grant dollars and the lobbyists have sidetracked your sound science by consensus to make to meet their goals/desires in the political world of today. We see the same kidnapping of real science in the over-hyped politicized swine flu pandemic currently wrecking death and gloom in so many countries around the world. Science has sold its soul to Al Gore and the World Health Organization.

I hope this clears up what I hope doesn't become a too obvious gap in your knowledge. I know that you would not wish to continue with an error once it is discovered, so please feel free to ask if you need anything else clarified.

Steve - you are amazing. Charlie Brown's teacher should not have said it any better.

Your arrogance is silencing. The food wasted on feeding your ego could feed the 3rd world and still have enough left over to feed Haiti.

You should donate yourself to science - they would have the party to end all parties.

[Brother]

You are the one assigning disorders to those holding that position contrary to yours.

I wish I was the one doing the assigning, but sadly it was not me that thought of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

Come to our forum everyone and get a free diagnoisis of your mental disorder if and when you disagree with us.

I like it! But it shouldn't be limited to disagreement, a mental disorder can stand on its own right.

You should call the democrats - they might write this into the new health plan and you could get a big fat check for helping them solve all of our problems.

Nah, disorders like this are easily cured. Just pay attention to reality.

[Brother]

Overjoyed? Would that overjoyment pass the level of scrutiny to where it would become simply "joy" if a concensus of scientist declared it so? Would overjoyment then become an impossible state after that? Or would further states of overjoyment at that point just continue to raise the level of mere"joy" to match what the concensus decreed? I would not want to do that to you - Steve.

So, does that mean you can't name one?

Steve - your continued explanations of the way things should be or as they have been in the scientific world of times past dont necessarily make them that way today.

Actually, science always works the same way, it's called the 'scientific method', and it is the single most efficient way to get to the truth. Sorry if you can't accept this, but as always just saying otherwise doesn't make it true.

I think your theory is accecptable but your application of it to today's Global Warming political agenda is whacked.

Again, just saying it doesn't make it true, and I know you desperately want it to be true in this case. You can make up all the crap you want about accepted climate science, but the truth doesn't really care what you make up, its still the truth. The political agenda is from the denial side, which has corrupted the reporting of the truth, not the truth itself. This is evident by your continued assertion that some guy's email that discussed the workings of his theory somehow invalidates the veritable mountain range of climate science that you wish didn't exist. Sorry, Rob, but a single email from one guy? Seriously?

It shouldnt be and it is unfortunate that it is - but being so - the grant dollars and the lobbyists have sidetracked your sound science by consensus to make to meet their goals/desires in the political world of today. We see the same kidnapping of real science in the over-hyped politicized swine flu pandemic currently wrecking death and gloom in so many countries around the world.

Again, you are confusing science with the reporting of science. In both the cases you state, the topic was politicized. not the science. Climate change is real. The H1N1 virus was, and still is a health threat. The politics surrounding them are at fault.

Science has sold its soul to Al Gore and the World Health Organization.

Once again, I'm sure if it were true it would suit your view perfectly, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

Steve - you are amazing. Charlie Brown's teacher should not have said it any better.

Oh, a compliment? Hmmm, better prepare myself just in case it is. Let's read on just to make sure.

Your arrogance is silencing. The food wasted on feeding your ego could feed the 3rd world and still have enough left over to feed Haiti. You should donate yourself to science - they would have the party to end all parties.

Nice!

Listen Rob, thanks for thinking of me in such a useful light, but what you see as arrogance is just plain old calling out wrongness. If this is arrogant, then so be it. I know you have opinions, and you are entitled to them, but when you say something that is wrong - especially about science, then I correct you.

What I have noticed is that you do seem to take great umbrage at being corrected, which I have to admit astounds me. If I'm wrong about something then I am only too happy to be corrected. Just like you I quite like being right, but I do so wish you would realize that just saying you are right doesn't make it true.

[Podium123]

Do I hear tiresome paranoia?

That's the whole problem - you hear what you want to hear.

Moderators should not do that.

Good moderators don't.

Thanks Rob.

[F1Wild]

Conservative or American or Christian views are not welcome on here...And when I speak of "American" - I speak of the American that you are so ashamed of. The American that elects George Bush as president. The American who stands inline to meet Sarah Palin. The American who in conservative in social views. The American who is proud of our country and what it used to stand for - rather than ashamed. The American who didn't feel the world needed congratulating that we elected Barrack Obama...My point being "traditional" American views.

As you walk through the forest - be careful of the trees. Pay attention - they are all around you if you care to look.

I am not ashamed of being an American, as you chronically err. My views, which are welcome here on the forum (as well as yours), would also be considered "traditional American views", but not the same as yours.

Face it, Rob. You spoke in error. You state that American views are not welcome and then when I disagree with you, you are not able to back up your statement other than to paraphrase and make assumptions regarding my views. Does that prove your point that American views are not welcome? Even when owner/moderator GB also disagrees with you? No, it does not. It only shows that we have some differing views, politically. What I do have a problem with is the fact that you are constantly trying to say your views are the "traditional" or "American" views when as both being American citizens with the same rights represent a small portion of the myriad of American views.

American and all views are welcome on the forum.

[Rob99T]

Thanks Rob.

Ive made my point - Pode.

Ill move on.

Thanks for listening to my view.

[Rob99T]

Conservative or American or Christian views are not welcome on here...And when I speak of "American" - I speak of the American that you are so ashamed of. The American that elects George Bush as president. The American who stands inline to meet Sarah Palin. The American who in conservative in social views. The American who is proud of our country and what it used to stand for - rather than ashamed. The American who didn't feel the world needed congratulating that we elected Barrack Obama...My point being "traditional" American views.

As you walk through the forest - be careful of the trees. Pay attention - they are all around you if you care to look.

I am not ashamed of being an American, as you chronically err. My views, which are welcome here on the forum (as well as yours), would also be considered "traditional American views", but not the same as yours.

Face it, Rob. You spoke in error. You state that American views are not welcome and then when I disagree with you, you are not able to back up your statement other than to paraphrase and make assumptions regarding my views. Does that prove your point that American views are not welcome? Even when owner/moderator GB also disagrees with you? No, it does not. It only shows that we have some differing views, politically. What I do have a problem with is the fact that you are constantly trying to say your views are the "traditional" or "American" views when as both being American citizens with the same rights represent a small portion of the myriad of American views.

American and all views are welcome on the forum.

Terry's views have to be included in your rant just as your views are also -as you claim.

Im not going to accecpt your premise that I spoke in error and that American views are welcome on here.

America- "In God we trust"? Do you trust in God? The view of America held so firmly by Terry. The right to own a firearm? The rights granted by our creator of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and that creator being the creator of the Universe -the God of the Universe. The traditional American view of abortion of babies being murder by choice. The freedom of religion and my right to practice my religion in public. Marriage as a vow between a man and a woman. The constitution as the supreme law of the land.

The comments made earlier about Terry's views indicate just a bias against Terry and his politics- his american politics- his american views. His view that America was just for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. His views on Ronald Reagan and the Reagan legacy.

All the debate and talk about closing the political thread - since Terry has left there is no talk of that - there is no need to - Terry and his pro-right pro-American views are gone.

Forum peace and happiness abounds - the arrogant Americans are quiet.

Look F1 - Reiss asked a question when he started this thread. Discussion developed concerning Terry's absence and departure and the present state of the forum. Im just commenting on my take of the state of the forum and possible reasons why this place has transformed into what it has become. You can claim or deny anything or all things you want to claim or deny - that changes nothing. History in our minds has recorded past events on this forum and we each view that history from a different stand point. Many things on here had become so common place at times that any possible outrage or offense was ignored or brushed aside as a mob mentality took over.

Terry was not an unreasonable person - he left for a reason- we have discussed that - he talked to me before, during and after his departure. In his mind he was justified in what he did - he felt he had good reason and really no other alternative. And as I said before - If there is perceived problems or a question about the state of the forum or ways to make the forum more attractive to future visitors - I think part of that involves coming to the realization of why Terry left and what responsibility we all have in his departure.

[F1Wild]

Thank you for your moving tribute to all that is American and the legacy of the almighty Terry. I'll be sure to salute his statue next time I pass by a post office or church.