57 replies to this topic

[LonJowett]

And critics will always spread misinformation.

Yes, you have proven that again.

[sharkman]

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue. In that regard you are somewhat naive. You are a rabid poster who holds your views with religious fervor and for that reason you should join up with one of your favorite causes for you would be an encouragement to the troops. But the organizers should selectively feed you only small pieces of the picture depending on how they want to motivate you. The big picture would leave you disenchanted with the cause.

Edited by sharkman, 21 December 2011 - 02:32 PM.

[waldo]

Geez Waldo

I accept you have nothing to say/offer... I accept your unconditional capitulation!

[LonJowett]

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue.

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.

[waldo]

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.

it's a standard move... apparently, if one provides countering/challenging information to the fake skeptic cause, sharkman labels that as, as he states, "blind acceptance from a naive, rabid poster, holding views with religious fervor". He, on the other hand, apparently holds a belief that he is someone who, with care and thoughtfulness, evaluates information wisely and astutely, and posts in an impassive manner.

[sharkman]

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.

Well, welcome to the forum! Nice to see you posting again, what's that, less than a 100 posts in 5 1/2 years, eh? Perhaps if you stick around a little more you'll notice a few things about the posters around here. Make me proud!

Edited by sharkman, 21 December 2011 - 03:14 PM.

[sharkman]

it's a standard move... apparently, if one provides countering/challenging information to the fake skeptic cause, sharkman labels that as, as he states, "blind acceptance from a naive, rabid poster, holding views with religious fervor". He, on the other hand, apparently holds a belief that he is someone who, with care and thoughtfulness, evaluates information wisely and astutely, and posts in an impassive manner.

You're a homer, dude. Face facts. All you do is shout and stamp your feet. And then giggle like a school girl with posts like the above.

I have biases. The difference is, I know what they are.

Edited by sharkman, 21 December 2011 - 03:16 PM.

[waldo]

You're a homer, dude. Face facts. All you do is shout and stamp your feet. And then giggle like a school girl with posts like the above.

I have biases. The difference is, I know what they are.

why don't you try to post/discuss without devolving into insult mode? I most certainly will continue to post accurately and informatively... I would suggest that if you have difficulty accepting what's posted, rather than reaching for your insult bag, just put me on ignore.

[sharkman]

And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

[waldo]

why don't you try to post/discuss without devolving into insult mode? I most certainly will continue to post accurately and informatively... I would suggest that if you have difficulty accepting what's posted, rather than reaching for your insult bag, just put me on ignore.

And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

quit whining; just pull the ignore switch... while you continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a fake skeptic! Have at it.

[sharkman]

Hah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! In ten years you might learn to be skeptical but right now you're too idealistic. If you don't like my 'whining' then I'm afraid you'll just have to lump it.

[waldo]

further to tarsands misinformation... the following as secured via access to information legislation

No 'credible information' to support claims oilsands are green, says Environment Canada

following on the earlier above referenced access to information request, along comes another:

'Secret' Environment Canada presentation warns of oilsands' impact on habitat

Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate.

The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Peter Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people.
.
.
"It's clear that there's nothing ethical about this level of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas pollution," said Saul. "The government seems to know the level of destruction associated with the tarsands and yet they're presenting a very different face to the public and in reality, there seems to be a massive gap between what they know to be an extremely destructive project and a policy agenda that is essentially seeking to promote the rapid expansion of the tarsands."

Environment Canada has been working on improving its monitoring programs on impacts of development on land, air and water as part of a process launched by former minister Jim Prentice, in collaboration with Alberta.

[cybercoma]

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue. In that regard you are somewhat naive. You are a rabid poster who holds your views with religious fervor and for that reason you should join up with one of your favorite causes for you would be an encouragement to the troops. But the organizers should selectively feed you only small pieces of the picture depending on how they want to motivate you. The big picture would leave you disenchanted with the cause.

u mad?

[cybercoma]

And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

Bias is when someone accepts or comes to a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because that conclusion appeals to the person's, in this case, partisanship. You could always prove that, instead of attacking the poster.

[sharkman]

Bias is when someone accepts or comes to a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because that conclusion appeals to the person's, in this case, partisanship. You could always prove that, instead of attacking the poster.

I have a question for you. Do you ever, like, log off this forum and kick back or something? Thanks for your advice, but I'll pass on the lesson. Here's some advice for you: If you're ever working in an office with Chuck Norris, never ask him for his three hole punch.