An Inconvenient Truth

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

Sorry, sorry. He's enough to drive you nuts, isn't he? Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

1) I didn't say ANY of that. All I said is that maybe your feelings that I believe I am vastly superior, and so launch into overblown descriptions of my thoughts and behavior, come from a defense mechanism. You guys keep telling me what I think, and you are wrong, so I'm suggesting what might be the problem. Your post just provides more evidence of such behavior.2) When did I say I thought I was alone against everyone else? Apparently bash people you detest, sometimes using solid evidence and logic, sometimes using really poor evidence and logic, but generally overlooking your personal failings and those of your fellow "defenders of science" because it is important to maintain a team attitude and support on certain issues.That is if by "we" you are referring to yourself.There are posters I learn from and those I wish I could learn more from. You could be one of those if you stopped arguing about my personality and stayed on topic with evidence and logic. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You have fabricated a deliciously cheesy bit of pretzel logic.If that is a diagram of your actual though process, you're in trouble. All references were to a statement in the first post and a single latter post. That fact that it was in the middle of a debate on OTHER ISSUES across OTHER POSTS, means nothing.And ultimately there were only 5 posts involved in the exchange, which developed in a linear fashion. If you had not ignored my correction, only three posts would be involved.You made a statement in your first post (30). You changed the language of that statement while referring to it later in another post (74). In my reply (77), I stated there was a change and exactly what change I was referring to. You repeated the changed language again (80) despite what I had said, and so in reply (81) noted "Again, let me point out you have changed the language." I don't know why you shouldn't. YOUR post 74 directly quoted 30 and then paraphrased it. In direct response to the paraphrase (which I quoted in 77), I noted it contained a word change and specifically mentioned the change words.You didn't even have to go back to 30. All you had to do was go back to your previous message and see the quote from 30 right there in your own post!I'll go ahead and document things even better for you in the future, but I honestly think this is a smokescreen. I don't think you are as dumb as your charicature of the flow of argument would indicate. It seems to me you skipped over my direct reference to change in 77, and didn't think about what "again" meant in 81, and are now trying to justify the error.NOTE, SWITCHING TO A NEW MISTAKEN SENTENCE... I already said that I can accept that's what you meant. What's interesting is that you cannot admit that the sentence as written has no other meaning than to include the movie as something to be ignored.You appear to feel the need to argue like there is some other obvious read of it. Edited by holmes, : No reason given.Edited by holmes, : hopefully clearer, combinedEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

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

It doesn't prove your point at all. If you were paying attention the first time you would have understood what I meant. I mean I'm not sure how much clearer I can get than quote your statement and immediately following that state that originally it wasn't just about what I was feeling it was what I was telling. You just keep losing it. I could very well accept that you are (or were) trying to explain what you meant. The discussion was about what THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT SAID.Yeah, in your paraphrase you had changed it. THAT'S WHAT I SAID. Suddenly it wasn't you feeling that I was telling people not to listen, it was simply saying that I felt like people shouldn't.This whole thing started because you didn't believe I could read your post 30 the way I did. I have shown that that is exactly what it said. There simply is no other direct read. I can agree you might have meant anything, but I don't have ESP. You cannot possibly be this dumb or obstinate. Here is the quote again from post 30... No matter what you intended it to say, without ESP a person must take the subject of that sentence as being Al's movie, and the comment about not listening refering to that subject. It doesn't even make sense to say it reads or could "mean" just Gore but NOT his movie.If you've got another read, you tell me what it is. And I don't mean what you meant to say with it. Explain what is the subject and what parts refer to what in that sentence. Here's the whole paragraph just so you can't get away with claiming it has some changed context... Notice I highlighted another area. I also mentioned that (though not fully) in my first response to your paraphrase. You are saying that come of the claims in the movie are bad and so I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That can only mean that I don't want people to watch the movie. That is unless you have some other meaning for that phrase than is commonly used, or the subject of it is not within that sentence.Come on, man. This just isn't that big a deal. I don't think it's that big a deal. But let's get it straightened out an move on.I am willing to accept what you have said was your meaning. But until you started explaining what you really meant I only had post 30 to go by, what I had been refering to with schraf and crash, and it clearly reads (mistake or no) as I said it read.Can't you just admit that, that it isn't that big of a deal, and move on? Edited by holmes, : originallyEdited by holmes, : explainEdited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Right. The clear implication is that you, soley, are approaching this absent such a defense mechanism. You're the sane one; we're the ones who can't see past our own bullshit.There's a much simpler explanation, Holmes. I've presented it. The reason that we all think you act like an asshole is because you act like an asshole. The reason that multiple people consistently describe your posting behavior as "frustrating" and "disinegenuous" is because your posts are frustrating and disingenuous.The reason that you're so often accused of misrepresenting your opponents is because you're constantly misrepresenting your opponents.The reason that you don't seem to percieve any of this behavior on your own part? Hardly surprising; most people who are acting poorly don't realize that they are.You misrepresent people, Holmes, as a matter of course. And rather than own up or admit to that behavior, you engage in evasions and backpedalling that precipitate hundreds of posts-worth of back-and-forth "you did this", "no I didn't", "yes you did, here it is", "that's not what you said I did, you said this", "no, I didn't" where, in defending your distortions, you distort your opponents even further! Until nobody even knows what the fuck we're all still talking about.It's astounding how quickly conversations with you degenerate into unintelligibility, because of your simple inability, or refusal, to address your opponent's points head-on instead of handcrafting strawmen to take out back for a whallop. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

Defense mechanisms are used by sane people. I do have defense mechanisms. I just don't have the ones I suggested would explain what I see you doing. With that in mind, in those specific cases you certainly don't seem able to see past your own bullshit. Ahem, multiple people have said the same about you. Multiple people have described my posting behavior positively... same for you. Snooze. As I have said that's cheap and old. You guys throw it around for anything and everything. When you mistake my position, its my fault. When I mistake your position, its my fault. And always always with INTENT! That's a great example right there. In the last thread you claimed this and I showed I never said anything bad to you. You started digging in on me personally and totally misrep'd me.And what do we see here in this thread? You show me where I refused to deal with your points. Or maybe you can show how your first reply to me in this thread dealt head on with my points. All three of you have entered this thread with strawmen of my position.You may notice that my first post did not do anything you claim above.Now if you really like serious discussions, we can stop all this personal bickering and discuss the movie, its website, the PPP the movie is based on, data within any and all, as well as conclusions to be drawn.How about that? Can any of you stick to that? Edited by holmes, : now

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Here is where we stand yet again.Ohnai boosted the movie. I said I would watch it but had doubts about how factual it would be, and pointed out misleading statements at the website for the movie.As of yet, no one has dealt with the misleading statements at the website.I have also seen the PPP on which the movie is based. It also contained misleading statements, as well as other logical errors. In fact it spent very little time developing evidence for its claims.As of yet, no one has dealt with the PPP, not even to explain if there are differences between the two.I am interested in discussing any of the above. I am not interested in pursuing debate about my personality.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

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

As soon as you told me what you meant, I accepted it. I let it go.The problem is that you keep trying to walk away with a jab at me, insinuating my read was not valid. And by the way, my read did not just say "not see the movie", which you can see at the post and in some of the following posts referring to that initial comment... I still think those two sentences I have mentioned read exactly as I have said, HOWEVER, I recognized then (as you can see in the quote above) and all along that there was a broader context you were aiming at in the whole piece. If what followed after the "and/or" does not cover what you are claiming now with some vague, generalized "listen" then I have no clue what you are trying to say.Get it? I don't see how those two sentences can be read in a way which does not include not seeing the movie--- and your lack of breaking them down to show anything else is possible is telling to me, especially with the "baby-bathwater" phrase--- but I included more than just that in my post to schraf and recognized a larger range from the whole piece.As it is the particulars of my statement is almost a nonpoint in my post to schraf, I could replace it with your current claims and it would still be the same, so your accusation I was intentionally misleading her makes no sense. But that goes along with what I am saying you keep doing, and why YOU seem to find some importance in it.If it was no big deal to you, you'd just have said it was a mistake and not needled me with further insinuations.Although I don't see how anyone read those two sentences such that they would not include "not seeing the movie" based on proper grammar, since you say people did I'll totally agree there is some other valid interpretation.Given that agreement and my longstanding acceptance you could have meant something other than how I read your statement... are we done here? Can you agree I had a valid read and so was not intentionally misleading anyone, thus moving on with the topic of the thread? Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sheesh, try a little originality next time. Do you think that if you're going to level spurious accusations, you could maybe try accusations I didn't just level at you? Huh? What? Oh, right. You think that as long as it's a new thread, past transgressions are erased.I can't imagine where you got such a dumb idea. Oh, please. There's a whole post detailing a host of your distortions. You know where it is. Address it, if you can. One distortion-free post! Congratulations. No, really. You must really view that as an accomplishment. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

1) I didn't accuse you of anything. I said people have written similar criticisms of your posting habits.2) As part of that same paragraph, and the same overall point, I noted that people had also COMMENDED US BOTH. Do you usually take people pointing out your commendations as accusations?3) What on earth is spurious in what I said regarding both criticisms and commendations? Are you claiming we have both not had similar criticisms and commendations made regarding our posts? Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh man that one was funny... Look out, its judgefrog, EvC's judge jury and executioner!Bud, your accusation was what I do. All I did was point out that those accusations weren't true in at least the last two threads you have been badgering me in. I'm not interested in going back through all my posts to relive what was already uninteresting (and to my mind errant accusation) at those other times.Let it go. Live in the present, man. I already told you that for all practical purposes I did address it. All you did was create a summary of earlier complaints, then added some patent BS complaints on top of them. Since I had already addressed the original complaints, I didn't feel the need to address them again. Since I believe anyone having read the thread could see through your patent BS complaints, I didn't feel the need to waste time addressing them at all.I have said this to you several times already, so your constantly bringing it back up is getting pathetic. I'm fine with letting YOU have that last summary statement. I feel my previous posts explained my position well enough and reasonable people can make up their own minds. Is that not good enough for you?Get it? The defense already rested. Time for the prosecution to take a rest and let the jury make up its own mind. I'm sorry you don't seem to have gotten the accolades or "verdict" you had hoped for. Time has moved on and you can't keep using threads where I am not doing things you have accused me of, in order to retry that old "case".Let it go. Live in the Present. All you do is keep providing evidence that my dimestore psych diagnosis has merit. You seriously need to let it go.I'm done with any more analysis of my behavior in this thread. You want to start a new thread on me somewhere, go right ahead. You can place any replies to this post there.As for me I'm interested in discussing the present... the movie, the ppp its based on, the movie's website, data in any and all, as well as conclusions to be drawn from them. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

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

Like I said, you seem to feel the need to stab someone on the way out of an issue. That really makes it hard to close an issue and its something you should keep in mind when you are trying to do so. Just a suggestion.As it is I didn't agree with some of your assessment but whatever, I recognize you are sincerely trying to reach a solution with me and so I'm going to try to meet you on that goal... Clearly there is a difference between both our writing and reading styles. I am willing to agree to the above solution. In return show me the same courtesy. This point I do not understand but I will attempt to change my writing to reflect your desire.I used to include lots of caveats in my writing until I was taught to remove such things because they are for all practical purposes redundant. If I didn't think or feel something was true then I wouldn't be writing it. If that feeling is based on an errant assumption I cannot know that until it is pointed out. Thus one writes what one sees as true, as if it is true without all the backbending. The statement (you quoted in example) was not meant as objective fact (like I am God) which cannot be addressed by further evidence.I'll attempt to change my writing, but please keep what I said in mind about my writing style. I suppose you can always read my statements which sound definitive as "I feel", or "it seems to be the case that". No I do not see the above. To mislead and misrepresent requires a will to do something, and generally a knowledge one is doing something for a specific purpose. You clearly were taking what I was saying the wrong way, and I was taking yours the wrong way. We were largely talking past each other and demanding the other obey our interpretation. I'm not going to debate who was doing it the most, because we'd likely disagree and is besides the point because we were both doing it somewhere.This is where I make a request. Please stop with talking as if I am trying to harm you, trick you, or in some way twist things around. Not only is it the same type of factual language you objected to my doing earlier, it is equally errant.Okay, now...Since it seems we are agreed that my interpretation was valid, that there were other possible interpretations, and certainly you meant something different than what I read, that should close that specific issue.With the forementioned solutions we can hopefully prevent or dampen miscommunications in the future. Deal? Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Tag

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)