An Inconvenient Truth

I'm not really sure the point you're trying to make here. Crashfrog told you that the film is pretty much even handed and that Al Gore doesn't make any of the "we're all gonna die" claims. He presents information based on scientific data and suggests that perhaps we should do some thing about it.Ok, so he doesn't come out and say that the 20 foot ocean level rise will occur over the next 100 or 1000 years. Big deal. The fact is, based on current projections, the Ocean levels will indeed rise 20 feet. You seem to have this rather bizarre notion that it's no big deal. People will simply move further back from the "new" coastline as the water rises. Well, what about the people behind them, and the people behind them? We're talking millions of people here. Do you honestly believe that those currently in the rears will simply pack up their belongings and move a few miles further inland because the people in front of them moved back, because the people in front of them were starting to be flooded out? Maybe before they move back, they’ll all get together and have a big ol’ group hug too. Wouldn’t that be nice. Come on Holmes. Your faith in Human nature is much more optimistic than mine, and I must say a bit naive. I predict that there will conflict . MAJOR conflict between those that currently have beach front property and those that will eventually have beach front property. It'll be a cluster fuck and the whole point of the movie is that we can, most likely, avoid the whole fucking mess if we actually start to act now.Or better yet, as you alluded to in prior posts, we can simply build a big-ass dyke around New York City, or San Francisco, or any one of a number of other cities in danger of becoming the next Atlantis. Yeah, like that’s gonna actually fuckin happen. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to do something now, rather than wait? Even if we’re wrong, even if Global Warming is a big crock of shit, what harm will we have done if we heed the warnings? Well, we’ll actually have a cleaner environment in which to live and everyone will say, in hind sight . “wow, that Al Gore, what an asshole, he gave us a cleaner planet to live on”.I saw the movie. I went in a bit skeptical and came out a bit skeptical. Some of the stuff I accepted and some of the stuff I thought was perhaps a bit overstated. So what. As Crashfrog said, the presentation seemed pretty fair to me. The movie is not set up for a scientific audience. That’s NOT who he’s trying to reach. Based on some previous posts you’ve made about this topic, it seems to me that your opinion of the average Joe on the street is overly generous when it comes to their understanding of science. When’s the last time you had to teach science to the mainstream public? For the most part, they just don’t get it. Scientific concepts are difficult for many people to understand. Al Gore makes a movie that basically is designed to teach the largely non-scientific public a pretty complex scientific concept, and you tell us we should not listen because there may be some errors. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water because you think that maybe some of the claims made in the movie are not accepted by 100% of the scientific community. Get real.On a related note, I heard part of a story on NPR yesterday that said there is a new article out in a Scientific Journal that claims to now show that there is a link between more intense storms (as a result of warmer ocean waters), and CO2 increases due to human activities. I cannot remember the journal name (hey it was late, I was returning home after a 15 hour work day, and I was tired...so sue me), but it may have been The National Academy of Science(s)? Anyone else hear this story?.

You seem to really like the strawman defense. What is “strawman” about what I said? To me, it is an accurate summary of your position. And this is what confuses me about your position. You make it sound as if Al Gore and company are running around like chicken- little, claiming that the sky is falling. As it turns out, it is my understanding the Al Gore was a part of the environmental movement prior to becoming a politician. And how do you discern between those in the movement and those using the movement? You have a crystal ball or something. Look he promotes environmental responsibility, so doesn't that make him somewhat of an environmentalist? But he is (so what does that say about your intelligence?). I'm not saying he's doing it alone Holmes. But for Christ sake, if we pay heed to even a few of the ideas suggested in the movie, how in the fuck can he not be credited with having played a role. What, doing as suggested in the film somehow discredits the presenter. I don't follow your logic here. Let me see if I got this straight. Al Gore suggests that we act responsibly and do things the decrease the amount of global warming gasses we release into the environment and this means, of course, that in reality the opposite is what will happen. Nice, thanks for clearing that up for me. No, that is not what I am saying. What I am telling you, is that many many Americans are scientifically illiterate (for lack of a better term). And who would that be, making changes in POLICY. Wouldn't that be politicians? And as I understand it, quite a few of those "hard working people who actually go into science" are the very some people that supplied the data Al Gore is using in his movie. What BS hysteria are you talking about? Again, WTF are you talking about? I never said we couldn't solve our problem through technology. Actually, you seem to be doing more of that than I. You seem to be saying "Let's wait and see, and if indeed the ocean levels rise we can simply build a dyke". No shit Sherlock. What's your point?But hey, while we're in fantasy land, let's pretend that "Al Gore" is correct and by reducing CO2 and other green house gasses emissions we can FAR MORE EASILY deal with NATURAL climate changes. Doesn't that sound like the better of the two options? Again, I'm confused here. What do you mean by "same temps and higher"? Are you saying that CO2 (and other green house gasses) are playing no role in the increase temperatures we're seeing? Wow, talk about BS. Does it make you feel superior when you state the obvious? But we can likely prevent these particular changes Holmes. THAT'S what I'm saying. You seem to think its ok to just sit around with our thumbs up our asses and HOPE we can solve the problem later. Define "doom". I think quite a few people would strongly disagree with you. But then again, no one made this claim. Sure, we may be able to deal with some of the problems, but to say that they are challenges we are going to "face anyway" is pathetic. You complain about a lack of science yet make claims that we're basically fucked none-the-less. After all of your ranting about how Al Gore is misleading everyone and scaring people into (God forbid) acting responsible, you basically state that what people should really do is see the movie but attempt to verify the information. How utterly brilliant Holmes. Boy, I for one am sure glad you cleared that up. Christ almighty, I swear, if you had gotten into a debate with Gandhi you could probably have made him punch his mother in the face. and by this I get the impression that what you mean is..."Put in some work so you can agree with Holmes cuz he's correct and everyone else is full of shit". But hey, that's just me.

I'm so sorry...thanks for enlightening me that any one claiming to be an environmentalist must be a dirt poor derelict.And you keep saying he's not providing data. Hmmmmmm, I wonder what all that stuff was he showed and discussed at the movie then. Forcing people? How strange...but it must be true cuz "Holmes" said it. I guess I just didn't notice the gun at my head when I went to see the movie. Really? Who are all of the shunted people? You do have a list prepared...correct. And could it be that many of them ARE pro-industry? Oh for fucks sake Holmes, get down off your high horse. Yes, you're correct, I did discuss the possibility of rising sea levels. And guess what, some cities will be under water when it happens. So how, exactly, did I paint hyberbolic portraits? Or are you saying that there's no evidence supporting the claim that ice sheets are melting, and that if allowed to continue will result in rising sea levels?The point, Holmes, is that perhaps we could avoid the costly (and highly unlikely to actually happen) “coastal engineering” thing you seem to want to do so much.We seem to have differing points of view about this whole issue.
Mine is like: Hey, it looks like a cement truck is about to pour its load in such a manner that my car will become embedded in it, so perhaps I will NOW go move my car.While yours is more like: Hey, it looks like a cement truck is about to pour its load in such a manner that my car will become embedded in it, so perhaps I will wait until the job is done, the truck has left and the cement has hardened and then I get a pick and shovel and hire about 20 guys at $35 hour to work on chiseling my car free for the next two weeks. Or it’s also possible that this man-made problem can be avoided, but in all likelihood my car is going to slowly sink into the ground anyway so what the fuck, I guess doing nothing is the easier option. and you will now do a rectal-cephalous disengagement and re-read what I wrote.Here, let me help you out: Notice the part where I mention how it would probably be easier to deal with the Natural climate changes than to have to deal with the more drastic changes that are more likely to occur if WE DO NOTHING? Hey, it's just a hypothesis, but it sure seems pretty logical to me.
So yes, Holmes, I know the climate is going to change but since it will be a "natural change" there is, by definition, really nothing we can do about it. Quite to opposite from what we're talking about here. You see, we CAN do something about greenhouse gas emissions, so why not do it? Yes Holmes, I know that the climate has varied through out geologic time. But what caused the "much higher" temperature swings? What caused the "much lower" temperatures?
Now, why should be just say "oh well, fuck it, the temps gonna go up anyway so we might as well just hasten it along", cuz that is the message I am getting from you. WTF? Honestly, I am completely baffled by this. We can prevent man-made contributions to climate change...you agree. Ok, then WTF are you arguing about? Are you saying it'll make no difference, so why bother? Are you saying the regardless of what we do, the temps are still gonna climb the same amount? Really, help me out here.To my eye, we have two choices. We can accept that we are contributing to global warming and the consequences are going to be severe, so why not do the simple thing now...reduce greenhouse gas emission. Or we can look at the data and see that we are actually going to have no effect whatsoever on the path climate is going to follow, so let's pop open a beer, turn on some NASCAR, and get drunk. You are, if nothing else, simply amazing with your ability to turn anything into a pile of shit. I really could not care less about natural fluctuations. They're natural Holmes...meaning we can do nothing about them because once we do, then they are no longer natural now are they? Why do you repeatedly (and quite annoyingly I might add) insist with your "now you will demonstrate" line of reasoning. We're not talking about natural fluctuations. We're talking about the Al Gore movie and the implications of global warming as a result of MANMADE contributions to the system Those are things we CAN DO something about. I don't get you at all. Are you just pulling this stuff out of your ass or are you reading what I wrote? Who said natural fluctuations have no effect. Not me, that's for sure. But why should that have any bearing, at all, on what we CAN DO about the manmade ones?

Good morning...again: Admittedly, I have not been to his site. However, I fail to see how making a buck should diminish his standing as an environmentalist. Stuff costs money Holmes. People want to be paid, supplies need to be bought, bills need to be paid, etc. What planet do you live on?
Now, should some of the stuff, if he feels it's so important, be made available for free. Yes, I agree with you that some things (like the refs) should be made available. But, like I said, money is a necessity. Does the site mention where the money goes? Here you go again with that condescending "you explain" line of argument. Ok, fine, I'll play along and explain it to you. Here on planet Earth, including even the United States, very few things in life are free. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything he needs (transportation, food, lodging, etc) would be donated? Alas, that is not the case, so he needs to spend money to get the message out. And getting the message out is a very important part of spreading the word. Now, I suppose by your standards, Al Gore could be an utterly fantastic environmentalist by living naked in the woods and feeding on berries and dead animals he finds (only, of course, if they died of NATURAL CAUSES). But then again, what purpose would that serve? Of what value is being an environmentalist if you don’t teach others? How are the uninformed to become informed? Are you suggesting that the best way for him to get out the message would be to stand on the highest mountain and simply yell it out?
You see, teaching others is an additional step that is oh so very important in being an environmentalist, and it’s costly to do so. I would have thought someone as brilliant as you would have known this. I don't know though...maybe you're independently wealthy or something and money means nothing to you. So you're equating current problems with erosion to potential future sea level increases? Wow.
Ok, let me try this again. I'm going to ignore any potential natural causes for this portion of the discussion (I will hopefully explain these later). Currently, the evidence suggests that global warming (as a result of greenhouse gasses (not just CO2)) is melting the polar ice sheets at an "alarming" rate (as in much more quickly than we earlier predicted). Granted, this "alarming rate" is not meant to imply "over night", but that's not my point anyway. The point is this:
Why should coastal cities, in the future...as the sea levels are rising to the point that "coastal engineering" becomes a neccesity...why should these cites have to deal with this problem when, if people reduced greenhouse gas emissions NOW, the whole situation could have been avoided in the first place. That's what I'm asking Holmes.
If what we do NOW could prevent what you so desperately want to do in the future from needing to be done at all (a VERY VERY VERY costly endeavor I might add...you gonna give em the money Holmes?), why are you apparently so against it? When/if you reply to this, please do not tell me that we're gonna face the problem anyway. That's not what I'm addressing here. My point is actually quite simple. We could "save" there cities from flooding by NOT flooding them.Now, will they flood anyway, even if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But if we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then our only option will be to do what you really seem to have a raging hard-on about doing. If we end up needing to do that anyhow, so be it. But the point is this, maybe, just maybe, if we act now, we can avoid the whole issue, or at least delay it for longer period of time.Now let’s move on the your seemingly “bug up the ass” about NATURAL CAUSES.First let's look at an earlier exchange: ARRRRRG! I just punched my mother in the face...you happy now?
Actually, you're argument is ridiculous. How to I explain this? Ok, let's try this approach:
In the future, our climate is going to change...agreed? Now, we have petty strong evidence (that even you agree with) that our current actions (i.e.: greenhouse gas emissions) are quite problematic and in all likelihood will have rather dramatic consequences for future generations (which you seem to disagree with). These consequences will likely include major coastal flooding, and severe temperature fluctuations in may areas. That is to say, let’s suppose that most of the ice on Greenland melts. The effects of this fresh water, entering the oceans so close to the area where colder saltwater sinks and flows back towards the southern oceans, will be major to say the least.
Ya with me so far? Ok, so what can we do? Well I for one think that maybe we should lower/reduce/stop our greenhouse gas emissions, and for some strange reason you seem to agree with this idea too, but at the same time you also seem to be saying that if we do indeed lower/reduce/stop out greenhouse gas emissions, it'll have no effect on these outcomes anyway, so why bother.You go on and on and on about natural climate changes and keep asking me what these changes will be and what we are going to do about them. Read this next part S L O W L Y Holmes. I don't fucking know what these changes will be nor do I know what our future generations are going to do about them. Of course, neither do you and here is why...they're natural changes that haven't occurred yet. So what's you point? You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. First you say you agree that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then you say it won't matter anyway.Look, for all we know, if we stop our greenhouse gas emissions, future generations may live in paradise until such time that our sun explodes (or whatever it is that's suppose to happen) and the planet is destroyed (and nothing we can do will prevent that, so why worry about it). We just don’t know what natural changes will occur. We do know that our manmade emissions will likely have major effects. Which one do you think we should deal with first? No Holmes, I do not. And I ask again...what's you point? For the love of God Holmes...NO SHIT! Man oh man oh man, you do so love to state the obvious, don't you. And yet again I ask...what's your point? So now I'm a fanatic? Cool, I've never been called a fanatic before. My mother will be so proud (once she gets over the fact that I punched her in the face that is). I'm not really that confused Holmes. I'm just concerned that perhaps you should seek some professional help to deal with this duel personality you seem to have. Yes...I completely formulated my opinion based solely on the Al Gore movie. I have never read anything in my life in any way related to global warming. I have never seen any data at all that in any way supports the concept(s) of global warming except what I saw in the movie. Hell, for that matter, I had never even heard of global warming until I saw the Al Gore movie. So your point is made...which is, as far as I can tell, that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we, as a species, can go extinct by NATURAL CAUSES, as God intended.If nothing else, you sure are a hoot to deal with. You accuse me if taking things out of context and then you say this: Well, again, let's look at the entire exchange shall we" Again, do you see the part where I mention how, since they are natural fluctuations, then there's really nothing we can do about them. Now, granted, I did say that I could not care less about them. But, when taken in context, I think your average fifth grader could have understood the meaning behind that sentence. Since, however, you seem incapable, let me explain what I meant.
I was addressing the idea that we could do something to alter these natural fluctuations by adding "stuff" to their composition (you know...like we are currently doing). Of course, once we do that, then they are, by definition, no longer natural, so I don’t really concern myself with them (i.e. I could not care less).
I was NOT implying that we should not react to these fluctuations. Who knows, maybe we will need to do some "coastal engineering". I'm ok with that, if that's where the climate takes us. They will be what they will be.Moving on: First, let me point out that the only way to read a post is one sentence at a time. Well, at least for us mere mortals. Perhaps you have some amazing ability to read multiple sentences at once that the rest of us can only envy.
And second, how did I take your sentence out of context?

I am assuming that the "HIS" in the above quote is referring to me. Please show me where I said you told people NOT to see the movie and/or not to believe anything in it.

What? If I've got some other read on this? Of course I do. My read is exactly what's written, which says that you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says. Of course, this "read" of mine is based NOT just on that paragraph itself, but in the context of when/why it was written, You do understand the concept of "context" don't you? If you want to take what I said and twist it to mean that I told others that you said not to go see the movie, then fine. Really though Holmes, isn't that a bit of a stretch from what's actually written...especially if you include the remaining (missing) portions of the paragraph/quote?For clarity, let me include the missing sentences:Kinda puts a different spin on the whole concept, don't you agree?And after re-reading your opening tome, I do acknowledge that you told people to see the movie but be skeptical. On that we agree. Sorry for any confusion and/or false accusations. However, I will say that it doesn't change my understanding of what you written since then.I did notice something else in your opening post that I alluded to in post 30, which you have yet to respond to. There is some evidence (a recent paper in a Scientific Journal) that does support the hypothesis that global warming (as a result of human activities) actually has resulted in the stronger storms we have seen in recent years.

Well as far as your take the second sentence, my understanding (and this is based on more than just the Al Gore movie)is that you are incorrect here. And you base this on what? Remember, many other respected scientists disagree with your assessment of the situation. This may very be one of the biggest understatements I have ever read. You know, it's not like the rising sea levels are only going to increase where a few cities are located. What about Florida? What about India. Are you aware of the predictions? Wait, I forgot, you know that this actually isn't going to happen. Sorry. Are you fucking kidding me. For Christ sake, go to a library or something. Come on Holmes...honestly, I am not going to waste my time providing you with evidence that a blind three-year old could located with both arms tied behind his back. It's hardly my fault that you have this amazing gift of prophecy and know that all the predictions about global warming are BS. Such as? Ya know, when I was reading the little squabble you were having with Crashfrog in another thread, I was actually rather enjoying myself and chuckling out loud. It went on for a while and eventually Crashfrog had a melt down and got suspended. I can totally relate to his experience. I'm fighting the urge to tell you to fuck off (oops, I guess I just did) but I can tell you that my blood pressure is shooting through the roof.You have got to be the most condescending, self-righteous blow hard I have ever dealt with. How DARE you tell me to "Please don't do that again" when you are perhaps the KING of misrepresenting what others have said.I have re-read the entire exchange on which your latest "request" is based and I fail to see how I misrepresented your claim. Hell, I even explained why I came to the conclusion that I did, and I completely stand by what I wrote. Again, I agree that natural fluctuations should be considered. What I don't think you understand is that until we tackle the man-made contributions we have no fucking way of knowing what the natural fluctuations are. Do you understand what I'm saying. If we fail to remove the man-made emissions, how are we to know what the natural "emissions" happen to be. Again, maybe your amazing gift of prophecy can help us out. So let me see if I have your position correct. Way back when (you pick the date) humans survived major climate changes. What was the human population at that time? Are you now saying something along the lines of "Well, some of us...actually quite a few of us...most likely, Third World, poor Nations...are basically screwed. Hey it's the survival of the fittest man". How else am I to read this. There are five billion people of this planet now. NOT a few thousand, not a few million...Five billion. Your compassion is touching. But I will admit that you are correct, (nor I might add, have I said differently) in that global warming does not spell the end of mankind. Bwahahahahah . Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. I see, you didn't say I said that, you were only "asking" me if I said that. But then, since I assume you read what I wrote, you know I didn't ask that, so you were just being "funny". But yet, when the same happens to you, you get your panties all in a bunch. Maybe you should practice what you preach.

Ummmm, because they're not the same? One of them says "you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says" while the other says "you told people NOT to see the movie and/or not to believe anything in it". Hey, maybe you should close your eyes and have someone else read them to you. Now, what exactly was poisonous? The use of the word "tome"? Puh Leaz...get over yourself. Granted, you have written much longer posts, but even you have to admit, your rarely write short posts.Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to fix "quote" box

I changed the language? Holmes, I quoted EXACTLY the sentences you used. I changed nothing. Where do you get this stuff?Here's what you said in message 77:Here's what I wrote in message 80:Ok, ya with me so far? Carefully re-read your statements in message 77. See where it says...and I quote: “you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says"? Now, again, carefully re-read what I said in message 80. Do you see the part where I said...and again, I quote: "you seem to feel we should not listen to what Al Gore says"Do you see how the two sentences are exactly the same? You can repeat this little exercise with the other sentence in question and I think you'll find that I did not change the language in any way. Honestly Holmes, if I wanted to say that you said people should not see the movie, that's how I would have said it. You know,something like this: "Hey, Holmes says not to go see the movie". I didn't, but you mistook what I did write into somehow saying you told others to not see the movie. Ok, fine...sorry if you took it that way. I'm telling you now that that was NOT my intent. I say things like that all the time to people ("man, don't listen to that Sean Hannity") and yet none of them take that to mean they should not watch "Hannity and that other guy". But nonetheless, you took it one way and I meant it another way...sorry. Well, that would depend on what else you have said. But on its face...as it stands alone...honestly Holmes, "No", I for one would NOT take that to mean that you suggest we not see the movie.Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to change a "massage" into a "message"

Can you not see that you're doing it RIGHT NOW!! Where have I complained that your posts are too long?And because I do not have a photographic memory like you do, the fact that I forgot about one sentence in your opening post means I clearly do not read them? (A mistake, I might add, I apologized for).Hey, just read post 86 for an example of even more "non-misrepresentation" on your part.And yet, you claim to not have misrepresented what I have said. Simply amazing.God, I wish I were perfect like you.I'll get to the other stuff in your message when I have a bit more time.

You know why debating with you is sooooo frustrating? You set people up, and then make some argument about how they misrepresent what you say.For example, let's look at the most recent posts.You said, in Post 81:and I responded by showing that I had not change the language.You then come back with "well golly gee whiz, I wasn't saying you changed the language in post 80, I was saying you changed the language way back between posts 30 and 74, I just figure you would follow my convoluted logic".You do this all the time. You respond in one message about what I said in some other message in regards to some other message about yet some other message but you never tell me this...till later...when you can spring your "trap" and show how superior you arguments are and how you really did not misrepresent what I said.I have read your posts, and while unlike you, I cannot recall every letter, or word, or sentence, or paragraph written, when I think about what you have said as a whole, my take is that you feel we should not listen to AL Gore. I did not mean then nor do I mean now that you have said we should not see the movie. Again, I stand by what I have written.Let me make a suggestion. When you're going to accuse me of misrepresenting you, include all the quotes to which your are referring the FIRST time you make the accusation. Look back at my posts and notice how I include all the relevant material to make it easier to follow and/or clarify my point. Seriously.For example, let me see if I can somehow follow your most recent "obvious" logic:Your message 88 was in response to my message 86 which was in response to your message 81 (where you accused me in my message 80 of changing your language, which started this most recent rant). Ok, so now somehow or another I was suppose to know (without you stating as such) that the actual language you accused me of changing was not that from your message 77 (to which my message 80 was the now infamous response), but rather language based on your message 77 in response to my message 74 which was in response to your message 70, which was in response to my message 68 based on what you wrote in message 53 (which you wrote in regards my response to Schrafinator in message 52 that she based on my message 35 where I said you could make Gandhi punch his mother in the face).Holy FUCK!! And I was supposed to know that the ONE WORD language change you’re bitching about was between my posts 30 and 74?Crashfrog...stop laughing. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

Well I went back to the exchange and I will admit that I can now, in hindsight, and only because of additional posts, see what you meant...which actually proves my point.Here's what you said in post 77:Notice how it really doesn't clarify what your talking about in regards to changing the language. And remember, when I wrote the "new" language, it was a SUMMARY of what I meant in the "original" post. That, in and of itself, should have clarified that I was NOT implying that you said not to see the movie. I fucking told you as much by saying:See, I explained what I meant by using the words "you seem to feel". Because that's just total nonsense.
But wait, dear God in heaven, it appears that you have changed the language. First you said that I said that you said not to Watch the movie. Now you're saying that the sentence means to ignore the movie. Well, which is it Holmes, do we ignore the movie or do we avoid watching the movie? Cuz ya know something, those words CAN mean two different things. I can, and often do (hey I'm married what can I say )listen to and/or watch something and ignore it at the same time. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

No, this whole thing started because you mistook what I said, and it has continued because you keep insisting that your original interpretation is the only valid interpretation. Welp, I guess me must be a dum ol' redneck, cuz just for shits and giggles, I ask my wife and another guy here at work to read what I originally wrote and then I asked them what they thought it meant. Neither of them came to the conclusion that I said you had told people not to see the movie...sorry. And let me make sure I'm clear on this...by "neither of them" what I'm trying to convey to you is that of the two people that read the EXACT same passage you did, neither of them (as in: "not one nor the other") came away thinking that I just told people that you said that we should not go see the movie. Look, why wouldn't I just come out and say "Holmes says we should not see the movie" if what I was trying to say was "Holmes says we should not see the movie"? What I wrote was "you tell us we should not listen". That does not say "we should not see".
Ya know something though, this whole conversation could have been avoided if rather than you telling Schrafinator that I told people you said we should not see the movie, you instead either told her what I actually wrote (you being so big on "quotes" and all), or you asked me for clarification, because I'm sorry Holmes, but what you claim I wrote and what I actually wrote are NOT the same thing. And since you did neither, I am of the opinion that you knowingly mislead Schrafinator about what I had actually said. Yes, I noticed you highlighted another area, which helps prove my point that you misinterpreted what I wrote...so thanks for pointing it out. I said you "seem" to want to throw out the baby with the bath water, which means that I get the impression from what you have said (written), that you do not trust anything Al Gore says. Again, though, this does not mean, nor does it SAY, that you think we should not see his movie. If this just isn't that big a deal, why do you keep insisting that I admit to something that is patently false?Anyway, it was over way back in post 74 but you keep insisting that I bow down to your superiority and kiss your pompous ass, which I am not going to do.
Now, if you want to drop this whole friggen mess here and now, that's fine with me, but rest assured that your interpretation is clearly not the only interpretation. And I have explained what I meant, so just let it go. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

Ok, look. Let’s try this. I’m not sure if it’s your writing style or my reading style, but for whatever the reason I’m going to assume that a misunderstanding has taken place. Try this Holmes. Next time I write something there will, of course, be no way for me to know if you understood it with the same intent with which I wrote it. That is, until such time that you tell me, or someone else, that I said something that I actually did not say. Now, when I say “wha?”, that should clue you in that there’s been a fundamental misunderstanding and that I did not say what you have claimed. Maybe you shouldn’t then come back with your pompous attitude saying that your “interpretation” of what I wrote was the only valid read. And then, when you ask me to re-read it and see how I would interpret it, maybe you should not then later accuse me of changing the language.You see Holmes, despite how you claim that what you’re trying to say is oh so clear, in reality, it is often quite the opposite. Seriously Holmes. For example, why would I defend my position about NOT changing any language if I knew that you were talking about one word (or perhaps as many as four words) several posts ago? Does that make any sense to you . that I would deny changing my language when it’s right there for all to see? Do you think I’m that fucking stupid? But notice how even when you defended your position in your response, you still DID NOT show where this change had occurred. You said, and I quote: “Again, let me point out you have changed the language. Your original quote was that I was telling people they should not listen to what Al Gore says.” My area of confusion was that I never for a moment even considered that you where making this claim based on me adding the word “feel” (or the words “you seem to feel”) to the second post. “How”, you are probably now wondering, “could that be possible?”
Well, I never took what you said about me changing the language to mean that particular change, because you essentially ASKED me to change the language when you said, and again I quote, “If you've got some other read on that I'd like to know.” I did have some other read, and that was when I changed to language. How in the hell can I explain a “different” read if I don’t use “different” words. And then you come up with the claim that I changed the language. But since you asked me to change the language, I never for a moment thought that that was what you were talking about. Of course, you could have cleared it up in your next post, but you didn’t. Nor in the next post. Finally, in post 88 I see what the hell you are talking about. Three post to essentially clarify a misunderstanding on my part because you, for whatever the reason, waited three posts to do something most people would have done immediately.Again, maybe it’s just how you write . I don’t know . but when you say, for instance...and yet again I quote, “I have not misrepresented you in this thread, nor have I misrep'd crash in any thread. I have no doubt that you agree with crash, the two of you complain about how long my posts are and clearly do not read them.”, guess what, you just misrepresented me in this thread. Of course, you come back and explain that you assumed I was complaining because I had previously said that you do write long posts. But notice that in the section I quoted in red, no where do you say you “assume” or that I “might”. You make it as a statement of FACT, Holmes, and then when I point out that I said no such thing, you back pedal and still make it appear as if it’s my fault . and still will not ADMIT you were wrong. It’s frustrating as hell.These are just a couple of examples of what I mean when I say that you set people up.Do you see now, what I’m talking about? You DO mislead . you DO misrepresent. Ya know, I considered not sending this message (it is waaaay off topic after all) and just forgetting the whole thing. But I decided against that course of action and instead did send this in hopes that maybe you can see why it can be such a chore to debate with you.Anyway, this is just along winded way for to me to admit, Holmes, that your interpretation was certainly understandable and valid , but then again, I never said it wasn’t. What I have said, and will continue to say is that yours is not the ONLY interpretation. But let me add that it wasn’t till waaaaaaaaay into this discussion that you said that you only wanted me to admit you interpretation was acceptable. You started out with this attitude that yours was the ONLY possible interpretation and it was only much later that you claimed “Golly, I only wanted you to admit that my interpretation was possible, why are you getting so mad?”. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag