but that was the point of using 4chan ... to underscore the insanity and imply the threat of infamy using a known. it was never a promotion, endorsement, preference, preferment, or any other word that may in any way indication promotion. EDIT: I'm assuming that when you put "Our neighbor", you meant the poster I was replying to. if you didn't mean that, feel free to let me know. END EDIT you're welcome meh. it's a forum where conversation happens. It's not like there are never any long explanations here... you do realise that its a joke, right? Hyperbole? the (apparently-not-so-obvious-to-certain-people) exaggeration not meant to be taken literally? you know, like my being part of the Anarchist political party who's still fighting over who gets to be in charge? I don't defend racist violence or police brutality. and considering your own promotion of it ... I do know that you can't have equality without the rule of law though. WTF are you talking about with "Your attitude on racist violence in the U.S."? at least I'm not a dry, pompous, narcissistic, delusional, semi-literate, stuffed shirt bore intentionally seeking to be a martyr-victim and I have a sense of humour
like if i was to call you a nazi & kkk member who frequents the dark web and engages in trading of children ? (& forget to add my punch line by telling you that you are a worthless human being for not agreeing with my) YOUR joke has YOUR own rules applied to it and you expect others to agree with YOUR rules to suit YOU. that is not how collective social code works. like burning a cross on your front lawn for a joke. would that be "ok" because i was just joking ? you wish to dis-engage the intellectual moral structure around a person to undermine their value and debase them ? by using a "joke" to lower the moral code ? to suit yourself and your desire to "undermine" the persons value to "discredit" what they have posted because "your ego" feels "bruised for being ignorant" why dont you list some of YOUR rules and there you have it you have brought down the entire discussion and thread down to your level of filth. congratulations ! you win
actually, no, it's not the same. I called myself a liberal anarchist. I didn't call you one. but it doesn't surprise me that you jumped right to that ... okee dokee the most important one is: Never try to light a fart when you have diarrhoea but a close second is: Never, and I mean NEVER let an LT lead on Land-Nav there are more but I've not been given approval from DOD to talk about them
lol you think your group conformist aesthetics behaviour aping is going to do anything ? when you say jumped you mean emotional over reaction like a female yes ? because everyone should already know what rules of your they need to follow to conform to YOUR desires ...
you are using bullying of me to thread jack the thread subject and lower the discussion to become offensive to intelligent debate you are doing this knowingly you are a troll which obviously brings in to question if you are impersonating someone else
it's part of that specialised training we received in profiling courses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! glad you enjoyed that what the hell does that even mean? Seriously... what does that mean, exactly? no - it means you latched onto it. you made an irrational leap. Godwin's law. No sexist anything implied or intended. that is all on you very true if you're a subordinate, however, if you were a subordinate of mine you would not only have them in writing already, you would also have been briefed, given the opportunity to ask questions and clarify the rules, and then you would have signed for the briefing. the government loves its red tape 1- I'm not bullying you. You made a statement that was demonstrably false and it wasn't prefaced as being your opinion, so I answered as you quoted me 2- it's not "thread jack" to answer your post, especially as you targeted me... or did you miss that? sorta like calling the electoral college a cartel without providing evidence... I know full well that the electoral college has problems. I also know it's not a cartel. if the electoral college were used to put the US Congress into office, I might have agreed, but the POTUS is relatively powerless compared to Congress you mean like saying, with regard to the electoral college "maybe the federal government should absorb them into their administration and save some costs"? ya know... you interrupted a conversation about climate change to quote a relevant sidebar between Billvon and I offering your skewed and irrational interpretation of the electoral college which has no basis in reality, then you didn't like the response, and now you're complaining because you received an answer and it wasn't to your liking while claiming I'm the one hijacking a thread and trolling. wow. that rabbit hole is deeper than I thought! well... I do a mean Daffy Duck when my throat is ok, but other than that, I'm not all that good at impersonations. I was once told that I'm pretty fair at mimicking Bob Nelson and Steven Wright, but I don't really agree with that one. I may have to leave you to rant away as this isn't going anywhere and you've already gone Godwin, so enjoy rainbow land!
Hold on a second, I was told Liberal Anarchism meant "everything belongs to Russia". Are we now redefining it for some other purpose?
American genocide. Or else trollwanking. I don't know, you'd have to ask the insincere. • • • Do you ever not fail?
Do start making sense. Y'know, whenever you're ready. Determined insincerity is one thing. Such persistent incompetence, however, is its own question. It takes a certain special dose— —to botch like that. Trust me, we get it. You are, as our neighbor has noted↑, a troll, and this manner of disrupting threads is hardly new behavior from you. Consider that there is, somewhere not impossible to perceive, a general standard of decency people are expected to abide. † It's kind of like the ongoing intergenerational socmed kerfuffle about #OKboomer: Even Boomers I respect are getting in on it and essentially making the point, like an author who merely reflects that she ought not be defined by her generation label, yet utterly unironically without any consideration of the fact that we're all speaking her generation's language in measuring up generations like this. But it is true, #NotAllBoomers, but therein lies another quiet bit of Boomer gaslighting. GenX twittery is enjoying the holy living phuckall out of this, and while we're aware the younger generation not only is somewhat ignorant of history but also tends to proactively loathe it, we're just popcorning the moment and leaving that point alone because it would also require nudging our Boomer predecessors and reminding them to just deal with it, and suffering, "Okay, Boomer", will help build their character, and, besides, #OKdipshit, exceeds the bounds of societal propriety. After all, part of the lesson was that there is a time and place for everything. Except, you know, anything that might possibly hurt a Boomer's feelings. We're Generation X. We're trying to sit quitely because it's true, we have spent our lives desperately trying to transcend the cesspit in which it's okay for some people to say things like, #OKfucktard, but not others. There's a reason Boomerism leads to a Donald Trump presidency, for instance. And no, that does nothing to warrant the vice of calling someone a fucktard; especially as doing so only legitimizes and reinforces that aspect of our nastiest American-generational heritage. Here's a sad part: They already knew. Raise up the children in the way they should go, and they shall not depart from it; Boomers already knew and believed. Compared to everything that leads to #OKboomer, the hashtag really is a mild, even kid-gloving critique from a younger generation whose vice so creatively exceeds anything their parents ever imagined. But it's true, there are some things we might wish to say to the Boomers and their Greatest-Gen predecessors that are generally considered beyond the range of propriety. To the other, though, 'tis also true that most days, we're supposed to be over all that. It's inevitable that someone would pitch a fit about #OKboomer, but that doesn't excuse anyone else for picking up the wail. Funny how that goes, when we're all supposed to be over all that, already, but neither is this a parable proper. † In our moment, it's not like people aren't aware of your insincerity; the disruptions are informative, nonetheless, describing utterly selfish perspectives, motives, and thus priorities. It ought not be too much to ask that you be able to follow yourself from post to post, but that, too, actually falls within the typal range. In my time, the point that glue does not stick to the inside of the bottle has been an actual, marketable joke. If you're the chemist in the room, the only part of the joke that is funny is the requisite ignorance of the audience. We can leave alone questions of generational empowerment in the business model bringing such outcomes to bear, because, really, that digression was just too coincidentally useful, and some days history just serves itself up, like that. But, yes, actually, your method in the present is hardly new; that is, right now I'm still chuckling about the fact that Yoni Applebaum turned up in my Twitter feed, today, but that only tangentially has anything to do with you. Meanwhile, the point remains: When you boast of your insincerity, sure, people will take notice. That antisociality doesn't render you invisible; when your contribution is disruption, it's true, people will notice. Whatever they decide about how to deal with it, why should anyone else be obliged to give you more consideration than you are willing to show yourself? #OKtroll is droll to dross, but there is only so much creativity anyone should spend addressing predictably pointed pointlessness. There is, after all, and not really so impossible to perceive, a general standard of decency people are expected to abide. • • • More to topic, we might consider the esteemed Ms. Thunberg, and this once upon a time lonely grayscale—or is that, black and white?—picture of a girl sitting outside a school. In the moment, it's true, I can only think, "Okay, Boomer!" because in the early part of my life, while hardly universal among American parents, the idea that a good swift kick in the pants will get that brat back in school was not at all shocking, except, of course, she's a girl, and you just don't go kicking girls like that, and don't get me started on the socially acceptable alternatives of the time, because they're back in fashion, courtesy the Boomer appeal to millennial men with the backing of a latter-GenX columnist. I think what I disdain about all this is how the grown-ups exploit the students; we put on big spectacles for ratings and fundraising, but that's all the adults in the room know how to do. Well, that and drop the Paris Agreement. Y'know, the only reason we end up somehow not seeing these things coming is, well, delicate Boomer sensitivities a weird idea about what is somehow unfair or inappropriate to accuse, suggest, or insinuate of others; that Trump's climate move is an incredible #OKboomer moment ought to remind, timing is everything, and everything else is the eye of the beholder. Human habitability is still going to suffer extraordinarily, and now that the prevailing ethic can no longer pretend their time on Earth will expire before consequence calls, yes, of course we are going to reject the Paris Agreement, because that is what our society and prevailing culture does. The idea of a Global Climate Strike is what it is, but Americans do not properly comprehend the notion of a general strike; we've spent generations vilfying such labor action. Like: Dear American Bourgeoisie: Some years ago, musicians and actors and other artists, and, I'm sure, a few businesspeople, took up a cause to start buying―get this―Brazilian rainforest land, in hopes of saving the carbon sink. It wasn't a horrible idea, but we're not going to take the moment to dwell on the current state of Brazil inasmuch y'all could be planting, here in the United States, absurd amounts of trees, riparian recovery fauna, and even, hey, have you seen the carbon sink numbers on corn? Or are you going to do the Boomer thing? I mean, it's true, we do subsidize fallow land in order to limit food production, that we might in turn prevent food costs from falling too low. We could try stopping that and just growing a bunch of hemp. Or field corn for masa, and chickpeas. Or do you still need people to starve so that you can increase profit? You'll never figure it out, will you, even when consumers can no longer afford whatever you're selling? Oh, right, we already know that answer, so, hey, could you please try proving us wrong? Just once? Please? And skip out on all that John Galt bullshit because you're really late to the show. Seriously, though, do we really need to put a deadline on it? Say, forty-eight hours? Go buy yourselves a tax write-off for this one, sure, whatever; you're going to, anyway. But say yes in forty-eight hours, or there will be a General Strike. Do you really think Americans would do it? Of course we won't. Seriously: Just try to imagine Americans mustering a proper general strike.
-6 degrees F this morning(that's -21.111 c for some of you) new record x 2 coldest for this date earliest date for this cold strike a match make a bonfire of your vanities
I could ask the same. let's see, in context: So if we break this down, I was using a term that is made up [Liberal Anarchist] and is nonsensical, as an anarchist is "a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power" (Meriam-Webster) and a Liberalism "is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law." (wiki). You didn't get it because [whatever reason you will hastily make up and explain to everyone], and rather than ask for clarification, you got windy and defensive, sans evidence. Then "our neighbor" [sic] went full Godwin and trolled with a free pass from you. (I wonder why? surely you can't be biased, eh?) The "joke" presented by our neighbour wasn't even closely similar because it was neither hyperbole nor was it self-descriptive of himself (or was it?) So the thread of the conversation wasn't nonsensical, trollwanking, a fail, insincere, incompetent, botched, a distraction, threadjacking or anything else you or our neighbour described it as, making your comments more trolling than even his own threadjacking diversions. but that's not all - backing it up: our neighbour also, literally, threadjacked the conversation and then got pissed because I bothered to reply... which is where you swoop in to add your two cents and further long-winded irrelevant soliloquy unde the guise of "a general standard of decency people are expected to abide" while intentionally targeting people you dislike for [whatever reason you will hastily make up and explain to everyone]. I would like to share some of your own words back at you since it really is you and our neighbour disrupting more so than I: it's not like people aren't aware of your insincerity (especially when you deal with people you dislike for whatever reason); the disruptions are informative, nonetheless, describing utterly selfish perspectives, motives, and thus priorities. It ought not be too much to ask that you be able to follow yourself from post to post, but that, too, actually falls within the typal range. when your contribution is disruption, it's true, people will notice. Whatever they decide about how to deal with it, why should anyone else be obliged to give you more consideration than you are willing to show yourself? Now back to the topic, since you've brought it up Of course, then there is the fact that most US citizens are also fearful of losing their comforts. This is the primary argument against global warming and climate change from most Conservatives and religious folk I've met, dealt with and studied. They don't see, what they've described to me, as a "viable threat" in their opinion, for various reasons (like "CO2 is plant food" or "warmer is better"). It doesn't help that we have a problem with Media or that there is considerable false information spread while the typical US resident isn't capable of critical thinking, especially in a STEM field rife with specialities. I could go on, but these topics were covered in the previous pages, and even though I don't always agree, we were having a good conversation about it. perhaps you should go back and read it? I see Canadians being able, and a few other American nations. just sayin'
Holy [bleep] on a [bleep] sandwich! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! we were officially double-digit (I think 14?), but our house thermometers registered 9 degrees F. We're quite a bit more remote and higher than the local stations though and tend to run 2-5 degrees colder at any time, especially in the shade. We're also heavily wooded. LOL
Do you now. Your sense of humor has been highlighted around here - by you, even, at embarrassing length. It isn't a mystery, nor is it (apparently) self-revelatory. Your self-image as non-delusional would be among the first casualties of a different, more alert, sense of humor - one of those apparently invisible to you (and Benson, et al). So would your apparent assumption of being more - rather than less - literate than the semi folk. As far as boring - not to everyone: some clearly find your habit of talking in extended and painfully familiar coded hints referencing shared assumptions more interesting than simple address of content, some may even find your inevitable and unavoidable halfwit's focus on the imagined poster rather than the existent post content entertaining - to them, you would be "interesting" (their, and your, term for "entertaining"). Benson's thread - the one you took for a "humor thread" - has grown legs. I admit to surprise, on that score. The nerve it hit was a big one - central system. It's also boring - not stuffed shirt boring, as you correctly excluded: bar stool boring. Bus stop boring. And - to the point - political faction boring. One, specific, definable, familiar, political faction. The term, the habit of resorting to such terms, the insistence on "breaking down" such lame-ass familiarities at completely unnecessary length, and the continual presumption that your audience has somehow missed your point, is dishwater. And part of this dishwater affect derives from its rightwing authoritarian politically stuffed media feed sources, from which rolls the ubiquitous, shifting, rancid, pea-soup fog smother of every gas pump TV channel and Sunday cable pundit circle and construction site radio and Facebook-addled casual acquaintance of this and the last fifteen campaign seasons lived through by us all. Or to point toward the obvious one more time: Why is the current cold snap - a phenomenon predicted by the researchers of AGW, and in complete agreement with their findings and reasoned implications - pretend-discussed in the manner visible here and familiar from all related threads?
If the global trend continues (increased extremes cold and hot ) with a slow upward trend to the average, then we can all expect the hot side to be just as extreme, after all what does it take to make an average? Alternatively for the upward global trend to continue the Southern hemisphere Summer will most likely be as hot or hotter than it is cold and colder in the Northern hemisphere. ( but more so) "Nobody escapes the extremes".... re:Monty Python - Spanish inquisition Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The only question is how cold will it get before it bottoms out ( over the next decade or so)
It's not getting colder, globally. The cold snaps are local, and already averaged in. The best prediction is continuation of global warming for the indefinite future, with some acceleration as the presently functioning cooling factors saturate or otherwise lose effectiveness (most of the feedbacks are positive, apparently - bit of bad luck) (the cooling turpenes emitted by the boreal forest have recently diminished, for example, apparently due to AGW effects). Everybody lives in a locale, and will be subject to local extremes amplified by AGW - the global climate is much steadier.
any ideas on how to get a graph showing: over say 10 or 20 years. global average maximum temps global average minimum temps global average temps ?? I am trying to put together a graph that demonstrates how extreme cold is a part of the whole picture of AGW. To counter the argument that because it is sooo cold outside AGW is a myth...and offer an explanation as to why it isn't.
start here: then visit these links: https://skepticalscience.com/December-2009-record-cold-spells.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm or https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm for this you can go here: http://www.woodfortrees.org/ you can check out the data in different ways, but heed the warning on the linked page: Enjoy and I hope that helps you get what you're looking for
