How To Deal With Obfuscators: Start A New Thread On Each Stand Alone Bit of Nonsense

[Bret Cahill]

I think if you felt you had something worth saying, you'd _say_ it.
I did you  seem to be offended by the science ergo  you  obfuscated your answer.

If you let obfuscators run a thread to two pages they'll think their
tactics are working.
Each "stand alone" nonsense is really new material and justifies a new
thread.
In these situations it's fun to drop the attributions and start a new
thread for each dodge, word game, etc.
Like a criminal returning to the scene of the crime the moron will
return to take credit and try to defend his nonsense.  This will
concentrate the fun enormously!
You won't even have to do this 3 or 4 times before the obfuscator sees
that he's looking like Wile E. Coyote.
Bret Cahill

  input data FROM TEMP.DAT
  B  1.30774340384789E-0002
  A  2.66367071822169E+0001
  A + B*DATE = AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OVER TIME

The disagreement isn't on AGW. Mainstream scientists are probably a
little slow if anything.

The disagreement here is otherwise well intentioned posters allowing
3rd rate obfuscators run posts to 2 pages on newsgroups.

The obfuscator feels like he is accomplishing something and when you
consider that he is reducing effective bandwidth, maybe he is.

A post can't be effective if it is over a few lines. As Strunk &
White wrote, "omit needless lines and use the literary equivalent of
disk cleanup."

Ignore the person and focus on the disreputable tactics.

Drop the attributions and start a new thread for each dodge, word game
and other disreputable digression.

Like a criminal returning to the scene of the crime the moron will
return to take credit and try to defend his nonsense. This will
concentrate the fun enormously!

Only sub 80 IQ looneytarian deniers will be too stupid to figure out
that obfuscating doesn't work.


Bret Cahill

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:06:09 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

Post by Bret Cahill

I think if you felt you had something worth saying, you'd _say_ it.
I did you  seem to be offended by the science ergo  you  obfuscated your answer.

If you let obfuscators run a thread to two pages they'll think their
tactics are working.
Each "stand alone" nonsense is really new material and justifies a new
thread.
In these situations it's fun to drop the attributions and start a new
thread for each dodge, word game, etc.
Like a criminal returning to the scene of the crime the moron will
return to take credit and try to defend his nonsense.  This will
concentrate the fun enormously!
You won't even have to do this 3 or 4 times before the obfuscator sees
that he's looking like Wile E. Coyote.
Bret Cahill

  input data FROM TEMP.DAT
  B  1.30774340384789E-0002
  A  2.66367071822169E+0001
  A + B*DATE = AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OVER TIME

The disagreement isn't on AGW. Mainstream scientists are probably a
little slow if anything.
The disagreement here is otherwise well intentioned posters allowing
3rd rate obfuscators run posts to 2 pages on newsgroups.
The obfuscator feels like he is accomplishing something and when you
consider that he is reducing effective bandwidth, maybe he is.
A post can't be effective if it is over a few lines. As Strunk &
White wrote, "omit needless lines and use the literary equivalent of
disk cleanup."
Ignore the person and focus on the disreputable tactics.
Drop the attributions and start a new thread for each dodge, word game
and other disreputable digression.
Like a criminal returning to the scene of the crime the moron will
return to take credit and try to defend his nonsense. This will
concentrate the fun enormously!
Only sub 80 IQ looneytarian deniers will be too stupid to figure out
that obfuscating doesn't work.
Bret Cahill

Irony, talk about wasting bandwidth with BS.