Search results

:mrgreen: that silly buggar

in our developing common ground :mrgreen:, I trust you appreciate there are some here who have absolutely no interest in genuine discussion. They are here only to: stir the shyte, insult and attack, bury legitimate discussion, foster a board culture that aligns with their most selective...

which means nothing to me as I won't read anything from that degenerate. So, in effect, you called bullshyte and subsequently point to a post from another member as to why you did so. None of which, again, offers any insight into what you personally understand and interpret the consensus to...

I didn't interpret you asking for clarification! No, you came out swinging with your "bullshyte" labeling. Hence, the reason I asked you for clarification; asked you to provide your understanding/interpretation. I also provided the context in how deniers typically have no actual understanding of...

member Locutus already tried... why are you lapping in? Would you also like my peripheral image graphic? here's the thing, gerryh... I'm not sure why you immediately took the simple question/request to you in a most defensive manner. There's no reason for it. I wasn't challenging you; I simply...

no - you're simply avoiding the simple request. As is the case shown by most deniers, they have absolutely NO understanding of the consensus. When challenged to state their understanding, their interpretation of what the consensus means to them, they react just as you have here...

again, another nice try, member Locutus... but again, my peripheral vision checked in! 2... 2... 2-in-1 IGNORES! is does beg the question on why you feel the need to, once again, attempt to get me to read a post from someone I have ON IGNORE! And you do so in a most disturbed and challenging...

agreed; as I stated, I'm not particularly bothered with an absolute labeled number... it still remains a consensus. But of what? Seems I can't get a one of these rubes to actually step up and define "the what" that they're just so having difficulty with!!!

you think I'm twisting? When you refuse a simple request, when you can't actually answer and provide your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you, when you alternatively resort to deflection/distraction/insult to avoid the request... that sir, that IS YOU TWISTING!

if so, why are you so hesitant, so resistant, to answering the request. It might take you a couple of sentences... if that! Just state your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you. I mean, jeezaz, you can even use your reply as an avenue to further trash it... but...

of course, member Zipperfish knows what the consensus is... and he knows how the 97% number applies, what it reflects upon and how it relates. As I said, most deniers don't... and I said that I expected that also included you. However, I gave you the opportunity to provide your understanding...

clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what the consensus is. But why would that ever stop you. Again, a simple request; one you're avoiding at great lengths: please provide your understanding, your interpretation of what the consensus means to you?

deflect away! Why is this so difficult for you? Plain and simple, so we have a clear reference point to work from: state your understanding, provide your interpretation of what the consensus means to you. Why is this so difficult for you?

I'm not asking you to "prove" anything. But yes, you do need to define what you're so hot and bothered with. Your latest post is most suggestive that you haven't a proper understanding. I'll let you twist while you blather/bluster/deflect... while you refuse to even provide a definition of what...

:mrgreen: clearly, another guy who doesn't know what the consensus even is... but yowzer, when did something like that ever dissuade your moronic statements from thundering forward. Perhaps you and member 'gerryh' should pool your failures, do a bit of research and come on back with your...

97% of "what scientists" engaged in "what"? Again, I'm asking you to define your understanding/interpretation of the consensus. Quit deflecting - answer the question... waiting........

most deniers, I expect you're included, don't exactly know what the consensus even is. They'll blather and bluster and whine and wail... yet they, I expect you're included, don't even understand what the consensus is. Typically, if you ask one to define their understanding, to provide their...

any time lil' drive-by arteeest! Any time you'd actually like to put something forward... and stay and argue it... and substantiate it beyond your numbingly stooopid regular fall-back. You know, where you huff-n-puff, throw insults, deflect and distract wildly... where you revert to your now...

and these CC "fake-skeptics/deniers" just lap it up... lap it up good... lap it up reeeal good!

yes, they certainly are idiots... of the denier extraordinaire kind! But you misread/misinterpret... there certainly is no frustration I'm projecting. This is shytes & giggles for me - big time! On those most rare occasions that I feel like slumming, I'll throw up a dedicated window for CC...