Balanced view

[havelock]

No you were not correct - I am not Lazarus.

However, the ease at which you leap to this conclusion with no evidence whatsoever explains why you are so ready to believe that AGW is a giant scam.

Along with your readiness to believe that there is a conspiracy of people trying to get you banned from the BBC, that there is a conspiracy of 'cakeboarders' watching your every move on this board, etc.

I would draw your attention to the fact that there is a syndrome that explains why some people think they are the target of conspirators but you would no doubt see this as evidence that I am some other poster that I have never heard of.

I have posted on this board in direct response to an invitation and you have been abusive from my very first post yet you seem to want to play the put upon innocent victim.

Doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Can you counter the scientific posts I have made on this board or are you incapable of rational debate?

[jean]

Aug 31, 2010 19:42:24 GMT marchesarosa said:

Ah, so I was right. Lazarus is Havelock!

Evidently not, marchesa - I must have been misled by your saying so.

But what does it matter, in any case? All he has done on this board is try to engage in debate with you, and all you've done is shout abuse!

[marchesarosa]

I chose who I debate with, not you two. This person is not a good faith poster. He is Havelock and he is Spir-an.

YOU are NEVER misled, lady. We all know that by now. You let slip the truth.

If Havelock wants some conversation he can talk to you.

By-ee.

[jean]

I didn't 'let slip' anything, marchesa!

You said havelock was lazarus - I thought you knew what you were talking about, since neither name meant anything to me.

Spir-An of course I do know.

Of course you may choose who to debate with; but if you always refuse to debate with anyone who disagrees with you, what are we supposed to think?

[pippa]

Ah, so I was right. Lazarus is Havelock!

Evidently not, marchesa - I must have been misled by your saying so.

But what does it matter, in any case? All he has done on this board is try to engage in debate with you, and all you've done is shout abuse!

doesn't look like a good faith poster to me, only posting links to which replies are expected. quite a good way of bogging someone down by doing very little themselves.

perhaps you could enter into debate with havelock seing as you like her/him so much. after all you have spent a lot of time in his/her defense while apparently knowing very little of them. wish it were that other newbies on the boards you visit were indulged so by yourself.

[jean]

I apologise, pippa, for pressing 'modify' when what I meant to do was reply to your post.

I have restored your original as best I can.

My reply was to say that I could not debate with havelock because I don't know enough about the subject - that's why I want to read a good debate between people who know more than I do.

[havelock]

Pippa

Why does "only posting links to which replies are expected" mean "doesn't look like a good faith poster to me"?

Don't most people post messages on message boards in the expectation that they will create a response or dialogue?

Anyway, I posted some pieces of information on the Climate Blog that were responded to by Marchesarosa by the continued reposting of one particular graph over and over again. It was at this point that I started to ask for replies to the points I had made rather than this continued reposting.

I fail to see what I have done to be labelled a 'bad faith poster' - perhaps you could explain

(or is that too 'bad faith' as I am expecting/hoping for a reply?)