11am ET / 4pm GMT: Happy news! Not long to go before the debut of what will certainly be the television event of the year, the inevitable (and, frankly, surprisingly long time coming) Sarah Palin reality TV show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska.
How many new words will this modern day Shakespeare coin over the course of this eight-part series? How many times will she wink and hint that she may or may not run for president in 2012? And most of all, will we finally get to see whether one can indeed see Russia from her house?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/nov/14/sarah-palin-alaska-reality-tv
The Russia link points to a Tina Fey video.
that’s because there is no video of Palin saying it, and Tina is at least as good a Palin as Sarah is.
Because she didn’t say it.
She said you can see Russia from Alaska.
Standard liberal crap. They intentionally misquoted her and then lambasted her for their own lies.
Tony is a comedian too, so as long as people laugh it must look good to him.
You’re forgetting the context. Palin brought up the fact that you can see Russia from Alaska as evidence of her foreign policy experience. That is why she was lambasted for saying it.
Obama’s foreign policy experience consisted of growing up a Muslim in Indonesia.
Well, that is a bit more foreign than Idaho. Or maybe serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave him some experience in US Foreign policy.
I’m not amongt those that think Palin is presidential timber (maybe secretary of the interior), but let’s be reasonable it obvious Palin intended the comment as an interesting anecdote and nothing more. It’s funny how the left creates myths and then believes their own myths.
let’s be reasonable it obvious Palin intended the comment as an interesting anecdote and nothing more.
Uh, no.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n
The Governor of Arizona has more familiarity with Mexico than does the governor of Maine.
Tricky concept for maroons of your ilk.
Steve,
absolutely right.
and like the governor of Arizona Palin had contact with all those pesky russian immigrants sneaking across the border. I bet half the sate speaks Russian.
What exactly WAS her contact with Russian and policy regarding Russia?
the governor of Arizona actaully has to deal with issues related to Mexico on a daily basis. If SHE said her experience as governor gave her foreign policy experience that would actually make some sense.
I have met people who LIVE in Costa Rica and don;t have a clue about the country because they live in american communities and don’t interact with those people except as servants.
Foreign policy is conducted out of Washington. It was an idiotic question and she gave a very reasonable answer.
It was an idiotic question to ask someone who could be president what foreign policy qualifications she has?
hr response contained no answer. In the Couric interview she apparently mumbled something about trade representatives. Now THAT, while rather piddling, is an appropriate answer
Man! Sarah Palin is hot!!
Apart from being hot, Sarah is a good person who has her heart in the right place. The left is absolutely nuts over the idea of Sarah as President. If she were really as bad as they claim, she shouldn’t be a threat.
I’m hoping we’ll get some serious contenders from the right in 2012, and particularly, Mike Pence, or another very solid conservative. I want someone who will waterboard James Hanson and Gavin Schmidt, and then re-assign them to a lonely outpost at the North Pole. 🙂
More and more I’m seeing video and text of Democrat insiders saying that Obama is completely disengaging from his role as President. One said that: In private, Obama is a “slow talker”, lazy, more interested in sports than what is happening in the country. His words, not mine.
I saw a video Friday with MSM commentators (not Fox) saying they have been told by MANY senior leaders of the DEMs that Obama is losing it. He’s refusing to meet over policy matters, and disengaging from the duties of his office. If I can find it, I’ll post it.
This guy might actually melt down before his first term is done. I suspect he may not even run for 2012.
So, vote for Sarah Palin? You betcha. If she were up against Obama, I’d vote for Bristol Palin!
Airframe,
I hate to break it to you but there are republican insiders that say Sarah is not such a nice person. Hard to imagine with someone nicknamed “barracuda”. Although maybe the fact that she is hot is more than worth the tradeoff.
Some men are threatened by strong women.
yeah look at the hysteria about Clinton, when the repubs thought she was going to be the nominee
Obama probably won’t last two more years in office. Instigations start in January.
And others like to be dominated YMMV
Are you sure Hillary is a woman?
Are you sure Hillary is a woman?
When will you be graduating from sixth grade, Steve?
When will you be starting it, Chris?
Maggie Thatcher had the same effect on her party. She was not prepared to continue with the same old failed politics that she had inherited from Grocer Heath and so had to step on plenty of toes.
Steve, you’re killing me! Hysterical… 🙂
Here’s one of the videos I was talking about:
http://www.breitbart.tv/scarborough-top-senate-dems-have-told-me-obama-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing/
You know, it very well could be that Sarah has a very tough side as well. I hope so.
If she can pull out a can of wup-ass and turn barracuda now and then, she’ll need that to be President. I just replayed that video. If you notice, that discussion actually occurred on MSNBC!!! The Obama channel! Amazing. And it’s posted on Youtube.
Now yesterday, Michael Moore says Obama needs to “Take off the pink Tutu”. How much worse can it get than when your own base is tearing you limb from limb?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300208
There’s also this from the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202846.html
What a treasure trove this last few days. Check this one – I think the takeaway on this is the Administration doesn’t want all of these companies to publish comments that they will have to declare a loss because of new Health Care regs. So, they’re handing out waivers…… 111 so far! They say the hallmark of bad law is that it is ultimately not enforceable. With 111 companies exempted, every other company in the country can sue over fairness. The Health care bill had no Severability clause, making the entire bill vulnerable to be struck down if any part is struck down. This is Nancy’s Frankenstein, but Obama will also take the rap for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Uu_tI0hTw
I’ll bet Jimmy Carter is thrilled. He can finally hand off the mantle of shame. 🙂
Environmentalists Complain Palin Gets ‘Too Close’ To Bears in Filming TV Show
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/environmentalists-complain-palin-gets-too-close-to-bears-in-filming-tv-show/
Are you sure this is not Michael Palin’s Alaska?
I think Sarah would be much better as the next Chairman of the Republican Party,than to be the next President.
I think she would be an excellent president. But then the 45th will be looked on as great considering the 44th, regardless of who they are.
However, I do not see her as Chair of the Republican party. Just not enough power for her.
The one commenter who indicated that men are afraid of women are correct. Democrat men are being emasculated by all powerful women. But then they have reason to be – they are basically effiminate.
1. It’s Democratic men. I don’t know why members of the Republic Party have so much trouble remembering the name of the party that they vilify daily.
2. I’d like to remind you of the utter terror inspired by Hillary Clinton in members of the Republic Party. So I guess Republic men must be basically effeminate, too.
It was the Democrats who were scared by Clinton.
Right.
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
#1 No, it is DEMOCRAT men, and I am not a republican. I am democratic, but not a DEMOCRAT either.
#2 Republicans did not vote in the Democrat primary, so your statement is patently a lie.
Phil,”
you obviously missed the republican angst over Clinton between 2004 and the primaries. I don’t know how many times I read right wing screeds discussing how horrible she was, and how she would destroy the country if elected. (and whether she was a man or not)
No, it is DEMOCRAT men
Nope. They are Democrats, but they’re Democratiic men and members of the Democratiic Party. Dropping the “-ic” was quite intentional, and it was done by the masterful Republic consultant/pollster Frank Luntz, the same guy who taught Republic politicians to say “climate change” instead of “global warming.”
Republicans did not vote in the Democrat primary, so your statement is patently a lie.
Sure, Republic men love Hillary Clinton, and she doesn’t frighten them at all.
Chris,
probably the only this i agree with Luntz about. Though I ind it funny that deneirs use this as another argument for the conspiracy or alarmists, when he suggested the chane to republicans!
The reasoning is that every area of the globe is not going to respond the same to increased global temps, so if you use climate change then all the posts Steve shows where it gets colder in the winter are, to rational people only of course, irrelevant. Some will get colder, some warmer. And conteary to what Mike says, there are actual predictions based on elements specific to ACC. There will be large scale changes that will be dependent on local conditions. So I always use ACC becasue i think it is more accurate
Oh, I absolutely agree that “climate change” is a better term than “global warming”–but not for the same reasons as Luntz did (Luntz, incidentally, is no longer a “skeptic”).
It’s supremely ironic that “skeptics” think the environazis were responsible for the change in popular terminology, when in fact it was the Republicans.
TonyD:
None of your terms are accurate. Your so called predictions could happen without any contribution from natural factors that have been driving long term regional weather patterns since the planet started having weather. As much as 50% or the recent warming was caused by humans due to urbanization or improper adjustments to the records and 90% of the climate change can be related to natural weather variations.
If a prediction is made and claimed to be the result of one thing and another cause is more probable the prediction is falsified.
Your heroes have not isolated natural causes or shown a unique signature / fingerprint for CO2 forced climate changes. Without the unique signature your claims vanish back into the thin air they were created from.
Are we forgetting IPCC stands for Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change?
Real scientists are supposed to be sceptics. I prefer to use the term Realist. Because I never belonged to the Church of ACC I can not be branded a heritic. Those that think a magic gas overtook natural factors to drive climate are the ones in denial of nature.
Tony Duncan says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Phil,”
you obviously missed the republican angst over Clinton between 2004 and the primaries. I don’t know how many times I read right wing screeds discussing how horrible she was, and how she would destroy the country if elected. (and whether she was a man or not)
Your last statement is an affirmation of my original point and a repudiation of Chris. Clearly if they were not concerned whether she was a man or not, then her gender had nothing to do with their aversion to her. While Obama specifically used her gender (and thus the democrats went along willingly with that misogynist thrust) a big issue in the primary.
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:05 pm
No, it is DEMOCRAT men
Nope. They are Democrats, but they’re Democratiic men
IYO – no facts to back up your scared tactics – and regardless they are not (in any one’s book) democratiic men. They want to coop the term democratic and thus they tried to make everyone think that was REALLY their name. But then you can call a skunk a flower if you want to. It does not remove the stink.
Phil, it has always been the Democratic Party. Members of the party are Democrats. But you can’t use “Democrat” as an adjective, only as a noun. It has ever been thus. It was never the “Democrat Party.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
Yes, it’s wikipedia, but there are nearly 50 references you can follow.
Tony Duncan says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:15 pm
#1 – Get a spell checker – your post is virtually impossible to read
#2 – You lose the argument as soon as you use perjorative terms. In other words, you have no point and lost the minute your illiterate post was written.
Phil,
a little testy aren’t we.
Pejorative is the name of the game here. I use it sarcastically because it is so much fun. But if this blog was not filled with pejorative statements through and through and the people here wanted to have a reasonable discussion about ACC, I would be happy to do so. But since I believe ACC is possible and I actually think it is likely, I am an idiot, a dupe, along with thousands of scientists and almost the entire scientific establishment. There are occasionally good valid points made here, but there is so much ridiculous word game playing that it is fun just to see how ridiculous the threads can get sometimes. And since I think this blog and many of the commenters fit the actual characteristics of cultists, I don’t hesitate to use that term. Although i have never called anyone here an idiot or stupid. In fact I think almost everyone that comments is quite intelligent, just unwilling to look at any information that contradicts their ideological beliefs.
#1 – Thank you for the spell checker. As for the testy, no. But I do remember the phrase “Best to keep your mouth shut and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt”. Replace mouth with pen (or keyboard) and you have what your post came across as.
#2 – You might want to point out where the perjoratives were used. The lamest defense in the book is “everyone does it” without any evidence. As for calling someone an idiot, that may or not be perjorative based upon any evidence already given. Idiots is a descriptive name of people lacking in common sense. As such, should one display that characteristic, then it is not perjorative, but descriptive.
Your use of the term “denier” clearly is without basis and used solely for perjorative purposes. Ergo, as I stated earlier, again you come espousing perjoratives, no facts, and then your defense is everyone does it. While that is not the definition of an idiot (and I have not called you that), it is very stupid of you.
Phil, if you don’t think this blog is riddled with pejoratives, which the blog owner does nothing to stop, you just aren’t paying attention. They’re everywhere.
No one is forcing you to be here.
that’s right Phil,
No one is forcing you to be here!
Phil, the use of the word denier is not pejorative in this instance.
the blog owner and major commenters are all convinced ACC is not only wrong, or impossible, but that it is a scam perpetrated to destroy our country.
I have not seen any comments from the major commenters to the effect that they have questions or see inconsistencies in the theory. Certainly I have seen no one except the obvious people acknowledge that any part of ACC theory could be correct. It is not even a theory and everything about it is wrong.
That does not qualify for the less pejorative sounding “skeptic” I would say that Curry is a skeptic, but not the people I am engaged with.
As for evidence of the pejorative nature of this blog. Chris pointed one out, and I don’t want to waste the time on something that is so easy to confirm. Pretty much if you go to a recent posting and look up my name Lazarus, or Chris, the comments around them are often pejorative. Not to mention the characterization of the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies in the world.
As I have said, I have used pejorative terms just as a sort of equal and opposite reaction, because it is fun seeing the responses I get from intelligent people who I believe are deluding themselves.
So it may seem stupid of me to do so, but that is because i know there is no real conversation here or interest in the truth. It is fun, kind of like the NYT crossword puzzle, except I am no good at that.
ChrisD – this is a SITE on which a Blog was posted (so yes it is a blog site). This blog has NO perjoratives before Tony used them.
Regardless (and BTW, Wiki is as useful as a pay toilet in a diarrhea ward), the worst defense again is “Everyone does it”, but that appears to be your only defense as well as his (and perhaps why you JonP’s question on the other post?).
Steven is very accomodating to slurs and aspersions, and I am not making the rules here (he is). I merely pointed out that Tony (and now with your extremely lame and irrelevant defense of him, you) lost the argument and debate by using them.
This blog has NO perjoratives before Tony used them.
You can’t be serious.
Wiki is as useful as a pay toilet in a diarrhea ward,
Your charming imagery aside, this is why I made specific note of the fact that the wiki article has nearly 50 references that you can follow up on. You are quite mistaken about the use of “Democrat.” Sorry.
Gee Guys I am heart broken! After all my comments with descriptive phrases designed to irritate you, you go and pick someone elses comments to show people here are being mean to you.
While you see others that disagree with you as being what you display I see them as wanting to discuss probable causes of climate change or even how to counter propaganda from people like you. Those that you think cultists base their arguments on what is observed in the real world rather than something regurgitated by a Nintendo game on steroids.
You do know what you call a blond that dyes her hair brown!
Artificial Intelligence!
That statement just seemed to fit the conversation!!!! 🙂
you go and pick someone elses comments to show people here are being mean to you.
I can’t speak for Tony, but I couldn’t care less about people here “being mean” to me. The link was to demonstrate the absurdity of Phil’s outlandish claim that there are no pejoratives here.
And, in fact, I believe you’ve just confirmed our point with “After all my comments with descriptive phrases designed to irritate you….”
Tony Duncan says:
November 15, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I never claimed coersion to stay here, nor have complained about the rules and posts. So your comment is misplaced – as are most of your posts.
Tony Duncan says:
November 15, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Phil, the use of the word denier is not pejorative in this instance.
the blog owner and major commenters are all convinced ACC is not only wrong, or impossible, but that it is a scam perpetrated to destroy our country.
I am sure you justify Byrd’s use of the term nigger as well. However you are just flat out wrong. The blog owner is a skeptic (or sceptic if you are English). Amadenijad is a Denier – and no one that has posted on this blog or any blogs on this site has yet to align themselves with Amadinijad.
You are not an idiot yet, but clearly stupid.
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 8:25 pm
This blog has NO perjoratives before Tony used them.
You can’t be serious.
I issued the challenge to Tony and now to you – prove it. Show them.
I already did. Didn’t you bother to click the link? There are hundreds more. Just look.
Sorry, Australia is not the subject of this blog. Again, put up or shut up (and I doubt you will do either).
Australia? WTF are you talking about? I linked to a comment that included the phrases “sad twat” and “pathetic geek virgin,” as well as advice on dealing with acne.
You did not read your own link did you?
And your link has nothing to do with this blog, now does it?
So what do we do about the acne issue Chris?
and if it makes you feel better, I saw the twat one right away
You did not read your own link did you?
And your link has nothing to do with this blog, now does it?
I don’t know what your problem is, but the link is to a comment on this blog.
So what do we do about the acne issue Chris?
I’m not too worried, Tony. The last time I had any acne issues, Lyndon Johnson was President. I don’t expect to witness the resurrection of either Johnson or my acne.
Ok Phil, just from this particular post, though they are worse in others.
I am actually upset that no one has called me a twat yet.
from Steve, right near the top, before I posted anything pejorative.
Standard liberal crap. They intentionally misquoted her and then lambasted her for their own lies
From amino acid
Tony is a comedian too, so as long as people laugh it must look good to him.
(amino has YET to apologize for calling me a comedian.)
also from Steve
Obama’s foreign policy experience consisted of growing up a Muslim in Indonesia.
and again from Steve.
Tricky concept for maroons of your ilk.
looks like Steve is winning this race
Foreign policy is conducted out of Washington. It was an idiotic question and she gave a very reasonable answer.
a new entry Airframe engineer
I want someone who will waterboard James Hanson and Gavin Schmidt, and then re-assign them to a lonely outpost at the North Pole.
steve building up a big lead though maybe this is just snarky
Are you sure Hillary is a woman?
and then TADA Philjourdan
Democrat men are being emasculated by all powerful women. But then they have reason to be – they are basically effiminate.
Now, does this mean I don’t have to shut up?
Mystery solved, Tony. Phill appears to think that nothing is pejorative as long as someone believes it is true.
#1 – Standard liberal crap is not a personal perjorative, it is descriptive. Again, just because you think you are a liberal does not make it about you.
#2 – Comedian? I find it hard (as would Cosby, Carlin, Lopez, Sandler, et. al.) to believe that many would find that a perjorative. You may not be one, but it is not derogatory.
#3 – Again a fact. Not a perjorative.
#4 – You finally got one! (Although not directed to you). Point made.
#5 – Again descriptive, not perjorative. You can disagree, but he did not call you an idiot.
And again the rest are not directed at you or Chris, but are used as descriptives you can disagree with. So you got one. I stand corrected (but a lot of BS – oops! I guess I am being perjorative! NOT try descriptive – to get to one small point).
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Now you are just being idiotic since clearly you – think denier is true. That does not make it true, but that is your problem. The perjorative is using a term that has nothing to do with a person to describe that person to evoke an emotional response.
So saying that something is “idiotic” or stating a fact like “growing up in Indonesia” is not perjorative, but descriptive. And indeed, stating someone is an idiot is not perjorative if they have proved themselves one already.
You have given enough proof of that.
stating someone is an idiot is not perjorative if they have proved themselves one already
Again, you seem unfamiliar with the definition of “pejorative.”
(PS: You’re misspelling it, too. Originally I thought it was just a typo, but I see that it’s not.)
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 8:59 pm
What do you call a person that posts a link and does not even know what the link has in it? An idiot. You continue to surprise me with your own admissions of being an idiot and not very intelligent. Now do you want to go back and read what you posted originally and my response? or do you want to keep asking what Australia is all about?
Phil, the link is to a comment by ‘smiffy’ dated 10/28/10 at 2:10pm. If that’s not what you see, you need a new browser.
Here is the link in text:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/hottest-year-ever-australia-continues-to-bake/#comment-8025
See that #comment thingie at the end?
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm
yes, I have been misspelling it (and probably will continue since it was added to the spell checker that way – loaner). However, you cannot read what you posted apparently. Sorry for your handicap, but when a word is used accurately, it is not PEJORATIVE, but descriptive.
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 9:19 pm
See the title thingy? Want to ask another stupid question?
Jeebus.
Do you understand URLs at all? Do you know the purpose of “#comment-8025” at the end? It is a reference to something called an “anchor tag.” Its purpose is to take you to a specific location within the page, in this case, to the start of comment 8025. The link I posted should–and does, on all three of my browsers–go directly to the comment I am referring to.
If you view the page source–assuming you even know how to do that–you will find three occurrences of the string “comment-8025”, followed by the text of the comment in question. That is the position in the document that your browser should automatically scroll to when the page opens. It should not take you to the top of the page. If it does, it is not working correctly.
Do you have any further stupid comments to make on this subject?
Depending on the speed of your connection this situation can occur. It is a common problem with satellite connections and some of the slower land line connections do not take you further than the title page.
Of Course Chris with you working for a PR firm that uses digital media you would be linked by Broadband at the least and maybe even have your own fiber backbone available.
Older browsers do not work the same as the newer ones also and some people do not like to constantly “Update ” to something that carries a higher price in computing power used.
When I tried to follow your link I was routed to the title page also. This could also be a problem with the host server.
Depending on the speed of your connection this situation can occur.
That is utter bullshit, but at least you’re admitting that the link was valid, and that any problem was yours, not mine.
Of Course Chris with you working for a PR firm
More bullshit. I don’t work for a PR firm. I own a computer consulting company, which I started myself thirty years ago. We don’t do, and never have done, anything even remotely related to PR. We do contract programming, and, if you use a PC, there’s a very good chance that at some point today you ran code that I wrote myself.
Older browsers do not work the same as the newer ones also and some people do not like to constantly “Update”
Oh, puhleeze. There’s nothing remotely new about anchor tags.
When I tried to follow your link I was routed to the title page also. This could also be a problem with the host server.
Here’s the problem, Mike. There was nothing wrong with my link, and you won’t admit it. You’re coming up with every lame, made-up BS reason you can think of, but you’re way out of your league. The link was fine. And even if there’s some problem with your browser, there’s this handy feature called “Find” that they have. You could trivially have found the comment I was talking about, since you were on the right page and I gave you the key phrases.
So you can stick all your “stupid” comments. You’re the one who screwed up here, not me.
ChrisD:
I always enjoyed talking to the good old computer consultants! They provided a portion of my salary by paying my company for their mistakes or their customers had to contact my company to correct their IT specialists mistakes.
That information explains your wonderful personality. You can not separate your self from your Nintendo games on steroids.
Your profession provided me with a comfortable retirement. Thank You!
ChrisD:
I did not claim there was a problem with your LINK. I was pointing out other possible problems that might have caused the problem. I started dealing with computers before my daughter was born and she is a grand mother. The first one I dealt with used punch cards and magnetic tapes for storage. Records were either stored as hard copy or on microfiche depending on regulatory requirements for specific types of records.
Bubba, you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve had most of my clients for twenty years or more, including my original client from the day I opened up thirty years ago. I haven’t had to find a new client in two decades. They find me. We charge a reasonable fee, we deliver on time, and our code works. My clients love me. And most of them are friends, too. We drink beer and watch football together.
No, the problem is that you, like the blog owner, are incapable of admitting that you screwed up. You called me stupid for providing a correct link, and, when the jig was up on that, you invented nonsense excuses in an attempt to cover up. You say:
I was pointing out other possible problems that might have caused the problem,
but every single one of your “problems” was completely bogus, and further ignored the fact that you said multiple times that I had screwed up the link, which I had not. I will remind you of just one of your earlier comments:
What do you call a person that posts a link and does not even know what the link has in it? An idiot.
So, what do you call a person who can’t figure out that a link is valid and correct, and that the problem is on his own end? And who won’t even admit that he messed up and makes up complete nonsense to try to get out of it? I have a word, and, no matter what Phil thinks, it is pejorative, so I’m not going to use it.
Yep Sonny:
It was dem programmers writing perfect code and engineers designing perfect systems that gave me an opportunity to retire early. Making emergency site visits because of perfectly developed software upgrades that crashed systems. And IT consultants giving questionable advise that also resulted in system crashes. But I am sure your software had no bugs that wold do stuff like that.
I’m just giving you the facts about my business. If you were unable to select good contractors, oh, well.
I am sure your software had no bugs that wold do stuff like that.
Now, that is just a stupid statement. All software has bugs. The questions are, how many are there, how bad are they, and how quickly are they corrected? My record speaks for itself. My clients are happy campers.
So I guess your plan is to totally avoid admitting you screwed up by changing the subject to something completely irrelevant. What a [pejorative]. And how typical.
ChrisD says:
November 15, 2010 at 11:42 pm
#1: I asked for examples on THIS blog, not the blog about baked australia. Tony obliged, you dodged and weaved.
#2: I made the statement about Australia and you replied with a glass eyed “What?”. Your link takes the reader to the comments on a blog about Baked Australia.
Want to make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have? Now I can honestly and factually call you an IDIOT.
Oh. My. God.
It all comes clear now. The penny drops. The scales fall from my eyes. I get it.
You don’t know what a blog is.
Here’s a clue, Sherlock: This page ain’t a blog, it’s a post on a blog. The entire site, all of Real Science, is the blog. The individual pages are blog posts.
Try to understand this:
blog post : blog :: diary entry : diary
Wrong. We both provided exactly what you asked for. But you didn’t even know what it was that you asked for.
Yes, because I couldn’t fathom why anyone would be unable to navigate to the other page on this blog and see the comment I linked to. Your comment made no sense.
Bzzzzt. That’s wrong, sorry, but thanks for playing. It links to a different post on this blog, not to “a blog about Baked Australia.”
Nice bit of irony there, eh?
Tell ya what, bubba. Go find out what a blog is, then think long and hard about whether you’re in a position to be calling OTHER people “idiots”.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
November 15, 2010 at 5:21 am
Man! Sarah Palin is hot!!
no, that’s tina fey. although this is pretty hot. according the artist, palin’s proportions from her beauty contestant days 😉
and i have to tell you all, this entire thread is utterly retarded.
as someone who is neither a democratic nor a republic, i will say that palin in 2012 is the only way obummer will get reelected.
and either way, we are all f*cked
ChrisD says:
November 16, 2010 at 8:29 pm
No Idiot, A BLOG is a WEB LOG – blog for short. Do you know what a LOG is? Probably not.
A site has a collection of WEB LOGS hence a collection of blogs.
And whether this site is one or not, your stupidity in not realizing what was on your own link and you stupidity in not addressing the question at hand (now you are trying to horn in on Tony’s credit – is there nothing you will not stoop to?) and you continued insistance on your ignorance of what you posted just demonstrates your stupidity (which is curable – seek help).
You are an idiot. Keep proving it. Idiot.
Phil, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I linked to a comment on another post on the same blog. Exactly what you asked for. The blog is all of stevengoddard.wordpress.com. The blog is Real Science. The individual posts are not blogs. Go look it up somewhere. You don’t like wikipedia, fine. Look it up somewhere else. Don’t take my word for it. Try to correct your ignorance. Don’t just keep on proving it over and over..
as much as I hate to say it Omnologos. Chris is right. The site is a blog.
You might guess that by the fact that no one ever says. hey go to that collection of blogs at http://www.blogs.com. The common parlance is there is a site called a blog, there are separate POSTS on the blog and comments on the posts.
And I don’t think you are an idiot. You have a flair with language.
You also have the most bizarre sense of communication and argumentation of anyone I have seen for a long time (John Cleese perhaps?). I give you your pejorative statements and instead of just saying. Oh never mind. you rationalize them as not actually being technically pejorative, by your own standard for what is pejorative. You might as well have said using the word “Twat” was not pejorative, because the poster CLEARLY was using a metaphor and not actually saying that Chris was physically an actual vagina, but since chris IS an Idiot, by your judgement, and Twat meant to illustrate the idea of idiocy, then it wasn’t pejorative.
As I admitted I used the word cultist in a pejorative way, even though I am fairly convinced it is accurate. Cultist is almost never used in any other than a pejorative way. Idiot falls into the same category. Denier is NOT because it is just a description of fact, and it is possible to say someone is denying something without pejorative meaning attached to it.
And then your even more bizarre interrogation of me regarding scientists believing in global cooling. . You set your trap and I didn’t bite. you set it again. and I didn’t bite, and then when I finally DID bite, you pounce with another bizarre judgement based on some bizarre idea that someone had written that there was a consensus. You never responded to any of my questions, and took my very clear explanations as being some kind of evasion.
Almost like you believe “when did you stop beating your wife” is a sound approach to resolving questions of fact and history.
Chris’ links work fine on my browser, BTW