|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 4, 2010 1:02:45 GMT
Bon soir...
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 4, 2010 1:23:24 GMT
I don't think Joe K has that much sway at the BBC, stu. But he is an alarming person - at least in cyberspace! In person he is probably a pussycat!
I would remove all those links if i were you, stu, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 4, 2010 7:03:50 GMT
Is that really Gp, I never bothered to look at their stuff much, it's the innate distrust I have. Is that really a 'child'? She must have had a hard life. If she is a child, it brings into question their morals, using kids on either side of the argument is a no-no. All it does is confirm my opinion about them.
StuartG
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 4, 2010 8:02:15 GMT
However a few days ago Lazarus turned up here in the guise of "Havelock" and immdiately spammed twelve posts of warmist orthodoxy in the top 20 thread titles. This was done with the approval of our mod Jean Hartrick. It wasn't spamming, Marchesa - the posts were all different and, even more important, they were largely in his own words. I thought at the time that you wanted a discussion. You didn't complain to me about the new threads, anyway. Did you really want me to censor them all? Havelock also posted on threads you'd started, of course, but I was disappointed to see that you didn't answer the points he raised. So much for honest debate. |
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by pippa on Sept 4, 2010 8:58:58 GMT
<<<<It wasn't spamming, Marchesa - the posts were all different and, even more important, they were largely in his own words.>>>>
oh no they weren't, i stopped counting after the first seven, which were all cut and paste jobs, and also included links to reports.
after a while he included quotation marks on some paragraphs while others, which i guess we were supposed to assume as his, were plagiarised.
you only have to check his early posting history to see that what i say is true.
yeah, so much for honest debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 4, 2010 11:42:06 GMT
Sorry, jean, i'm not here to "debate" with your protegés. Trolls should be ignored. I practice what I preach. Lazarus "appeared" on the BBC Science board a couple of weeks back SPECIFICALLY to take me on. I treated him the same as anyone else who argues a case in good faith. He then pursued me here simply to make an impression on what is obviously a "sceptical" climate blog. In fact it looks to me as if he was actually attempting, with the help of our mod, jean, to do a complete make-over. ANYONE can post on Marchesa's Climate blog and no-one has EVER been prevented. Jean wishes to provoke aggravation here as she does everywhere else. We don't need a mod who does not protect her own board from attack. As I said once before, she sh*ts all over it every time she appears. I do not play ball with her or the outsiders she supports in order to promote her "fun". Sorry. She should resign. She is unfit for purpose - demonstrably so since this "incident". Who was that masked man, by the way? What was his ID on the BBC Science Board? A big kiss for anyone who provides the answer! Now please stop this utterly false brouhaha over "censorship". No-one has been censored or catpeed or prevented from participating on this board. Havelock has NOT been "silenced". He has taken himself off. And incidentally the link I provided from the BBC Science board to here was to one specific thread only. This one: Arctic Warms Seals Vanish Icebergs melt (Read 1,723 times)thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=31It is a llittle gem! It does more to undermine the fake hypothesis of AGW that any other thread on the board. That is why I link to it. Have you noticed how many times it has been looked at? |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 4, 2010 11:48:07 GMT
In fact it looks to me as if he was actually attempting, with the help of our mod, jean, to do a complete make-over. And how exactly did I help him do anything, marchesa? The only thing I could have done was to censor each new thread as it appeared. Is that what you wanted me to do? If not, what did you want? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 4, 2010 11:59:42 GMT
I wanted protection for Marchesa's Climate Blog which has been the mainstay of this board since it opened, just as i have been. If you can't protect the board you don't deserve to be its mod. Resign.
We managed perfectly well before you were elevated and we will again.
Goddess knew how to deal with a troll. You only encouraged him!
This would have been bad enough if Havelock were indeed a innocent newcomer. But he is not. He is Lazarus and he is Sprain, your longtime protegé.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 4, 2010 12:12:14 GMT
I wanted protection for Marchesa's Climate Blog... You have not told me what you mean by 'protection'. I had no idea that you only wanted people's contributions to threads you'd already started. |
|
|
|
Post by sinistral on Sept 4, 2010 12:24:35 GMT
Marchesa
If you wanted your Climate Blog protected why didn't you ask Goddess to prevent anyone else posting on it?
Then you could have put all your data up for reading and any comments (for or against) could have gone on a separate section.
It would have kept your Blog unsullied while allowing for vigorous debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 4, 2010 12:32:23 GMT
"I had no idea that you only wanted people's contributions to threads you'd already started."
There was never a problem with others starting threads before. Not many did but that was their choice, not mine.
Marchesa's Climate blog is a sceptic blog which has gotten up some people's noses for a long while. Goddess created the board. Bets designed it and specifically included a designated place for the climate archive spesh had previously managed to obliterate.
The archive is what it is. It has been a permanent and important feature of this board since its inception.
Live with it.
If you can't, get off the board and pursue your "fun" in the other places you frequent. This particular proboard is the home of my archive and I will certainly do the best I can to protect it from people like lazarus/havelock/sprain and trolls in the disguise of mods.
Resign.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 4, 2010 12:36:43 GMT
I am happy to 'live with' your blog in whatever form it takes, marchesa.
But you still have not told me exactly how you wanted me to protect it.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 4, 2010 13:03:23 GMT
Whoa Ladies,
'It wasn't spamming' Jean, with respect, it was. I presume that the poster was already known. If correctly identified in other posts, it is His trademark, posting a lot of extracts from various sites 'how to debunk/rebutt' 'warmist theories'. The sheer weight of the task to structure arguments to counter his can become daunting. However if attempted. it soon becomes apparent that there is little depth to it all. A finely structured counter claim, including references soon starts the 'crumble'. It is then possible to say 'so far I have made all the running, and no counterclaims have been made on Your side' then the subject is changed. the next round starts, but armed with the knowledge obtained, it is easier to 'reference' the next argument to a logical conclusion. All Wind & P sums it up.
Mary, a catalyst does not take part in the reaction, as You know, however it does promote it. I did not say that anyone was that powerful. Subversion is a fine art at times, but the case referred to was not so fine. If the posts were studied carefully, it was possible to see 'opportunities' taken and what was said in order to 'proceed the cause'.
In both the above it is possible to cite examples from other boards, but upon reflection, I hope that won't be necessary.
Best intentions,
StuartG
re-edit missing inverts added
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 4, 2010 13:23:52 GMT
'I haven't spent much time reading this board, but I think that talk of 'trolls' is probably misplaced.'
To Jean & 'Rosa.
If You as Jean* wrote this elsewhere, then I agree that is generally true. However, there are/is exception, look above at the previous entry, and there You have it. I have spent some time studying the MO of it, so both of You know, now watch it [try to] happen elsewhere.
StuartG
* remember 'She who has to be obeyed'
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 4, 2010 13:33:48 GMT
'It wasn't spamming' Jean, with respect, it was. 'Spamming' involves multiple copies of the same message. Whatever you consider havelock did on this board, it wasn't that. 'I haven't spent much time reading this board, but I think that talk of 'trolls' is probably misplaced.' To Jean & 'Rosa. If You as Jean* wrote this elsewhere, then I agree that is generally true. However, there are/is exception, look above at the previous entry, and there You have it. I have spent some time studying the MO of it, so both of You know, now watch it [try to] happen elsewhere. StuartG * remember 'She who has to be obeyed' Not really sure what you mean here, Stuart. Yes, I did write the post you quote; I don't think the marchesa/Mary is a troll. Though she certainly can be disruptive. |
|
