Discussion:
Always room for expert opinion
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-12-10 19:56:30 UTC
Permalink
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Tony
2020-12-11 00:06:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Rich80105
2020-12-11 02:50:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:06:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Not at all - I have not seen any panic. New Zealand does have
international obligations under an agreement which Paula Bennett
agreed on our behalf, and there is some need to avoid large payments
for not complying, but I am not aware of any panic. Can you give an
example?
Gordon
2020-12-11 03:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:06:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Not at all - I have not seen any panic. New Zealand does have
international obligations under an agreement which Paula Bennett
agreed on our behalf, and there is some need to avoid large payments
for not complying, but I am not aware of any panic. Can you give an
example?
Panic is really the wrong word is it not? Political agendas would be closer.
Also panic suggests some *action* which we do not have.
Tony
2020-12-11 03:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:06:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Not at all - I have not seen any panic. New Zealand does have
international obligations under an agreement which Paula Bennett
agreed on our behalf, and there is some need to avoid large payments
for not complying, but I am not aware of any panic. Can you give an
example?
What we have agreed to is irrelevant. What matters is what is currently the
case - nothing else.
I have already answered your question - those who believe that climate change
is predominantly man made. That is not established scientific opinion.
John Bowes
2020-12-11 05:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:06:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Not at all - I have not seen any panic. New Zealand does have
international obligations under an agreement which Paula Bennett
agreed on our behalf, and there is some need to avoid large payments
for not complying, but I am not aware of any panic. Can you give an
example?
What we have agreed to is irrelevant. What matters is what is currently the
case - nothing else.
I have already answered your question - those who believe that climate change
is predominantly man made. That is not established scientific opinion.
The claim the science is settled is proof the fanatics are talking shit because as any reputable scientist will tell you: science is NEVER settled!
John Bowes
2020-12-11 05:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:06:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Those that believe that climate change is predominantly man made. Fairly
obvious really.
Not at all - I have not seen any panic. New Zealand does have
international obligations under an agreement which Paula Bennett
agreed on our behalf, and there is some need to avoid large payments
for not complying, but I am not aware of any panic. Can you give an
example?
The government declaring a climate emergency!
John Bowes
2020-12-11 00:51:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
You! You're glorious leader and her imbecilic government, the Greens and all those who treat climate change science as being settled Rich! REAL science NEVER considers science is settled! Only fucking imbeciles do that.
Rich80105
2020-12-11 02:52:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:51:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
You! You're glorious leader and her imbecilic government, the Greens and all those who treat climate change science as being settled Rich! REAL science NEVER considers science is settled! Only fucking imbeciles do that.
I've asked tony for an example of anyone panicking - I see no panic,
unless your response above represents panic? Are you panicking, John
Bowes?
Tony
2020-12-11 03:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:51:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
You! You're glorious leader and her imbecilic government, the Greens and all
those who treat climate change science as being settled Rich! REAL science
NEVER considers science is settled! Only fucking imbeciles do that.
I've asked tony for an example of anyone panicking - I see no panic,
Of course you don't, you only care about the politics. There is plenty of panic
and some of it is dangerous.
Post by Rich80105
unless your response above represents panic? Are you panicking, John
Bowes?
John Bowes
2020-12-11 05:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:51:55 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
You! You're glorious leader and her imbecilic government, the Greens and all those who treat climate change science as being settled Rich! REAL science NEVER considers science is settled! Only fucking imbeciles do that.
I've asked tony for an example of anyone panicking - I see no panic,
unless your response above represents panic? Are you panicking, John
Bowes?
Far from it Rich. I leave that to sheep like you who blindly accept the crap coming from the UN without bothering to do their own checking! Please don't claim you're not panicking Rich because it's obvious from your blind acceptance of the 'climate change' (global warming ) myth that you do!

I believe in climate change (not the global warming bullshit) because it's been changing since planet earth developed an atmosphere!
Gordon
2020-12-11 03:08:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Rich80105
2020-12-11 10:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Tony
2020-12-11 19:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
Rich80105
2020-12-11 20:03:29 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:22:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
Is this you, Tony?
https://www.facebook.com/tony.troll.39
Tony
2020-12-11 20:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:22:57 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
Is this you, Tony?
https://www.facebook.com/tony.troll.39
All you ever do, and I mean "ever" when you dislike what someone posts is
become offensive.
You are a childish little old man who is well past being relevant.
James Christophers
2020-12-11 20:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded on more than 60 years ago:

A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an elephant in the larder?

B: But there is no elephant in the larder.

A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to intensify the 'reasoning'.)

B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!

A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have they got away with it for so long?

(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)

Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it - that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
Tony
2020-12-11 21:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself. But that silly
diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote - and we all know it.
Rich80105
2020-12-11 22:53:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:16:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself. But that silly
diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote - and we all know it.
James Christophers is correct and you know it Tony. To express an
opinion is legitimate, but it is polite and good practice to identify
your comment as such. To assert a fact is also not unreasonable at
times, but when asked politely to give support for your statement it
is dishonest to respond with obfuscation and abuse - your posts
represent classic troll behaviour, Tony.
Tony
2020-12-11 23:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:16:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself. But that silly
diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote - and we all know it.
James Christophers is correct and you know it Tony. To express an
opinion is legitimate, but it is polite and good practice to identify
your comment as such. To assert a fact is also not unreasonable at
times, but when asked politely to give support for your statement it
is dishonest to respond with obfuscation and abuse - your posts
represent classic troll behaviour, Tony.
No they don't but yoours do.
You have just provided an opinion with zero evidence, just what you accuse me
of ad nausium.
You are the troll in this newsgroup as well as the defamer, liar and serial
abuser.
James Christophers
2020-12-12 05:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:16:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have
they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself.
More gratuitous presumptuousness from you - the ingrained conceits of an arrogant nincompoop lost for argument up there in lights. No "supporting evidence" of this needed either since my reply is plainly self-validating.
So you say while closing your ears and eyes to the fact that it serves as a salutary reminder to you of your own silliness, which is precisely why I cited it in the first place. Fact is, the substance of what I gave has everything to do with what you wrote, and you you know cannot possibly show otherwise.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and we all know it.
“We”. There you go yet again with yet another gratuitous and unverifiable presumption.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
James Christophers is correct and you know it Tony.
Quite so.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
To express an
opinion is legitimate, but it is polite and good practice to identify
your comment as such. To assert a fact is also not unreasonable at
times, but when asked politely to give support for your statement it
is dishonest to respond with obfuscation and abuse - your posts
represent classic troll behaviour, Tony.
No they don't but yoours do.
OK, then - prove yours is not" classic troll behaviour".
Post by Tony
You have just provided an opinion with zero evidence...
Name, exactly, that evidence you seek, but has been absent prior to "Rich's" post?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
just what you accuse me of ad nausium. (sic - 70% Lain pass, an' all!)
'Nuff said!
Tony
2020-12-12 06:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:16:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have
they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close
to
it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself.
More gratuitous presumptuousness from you - the ingrained conceits of an
arrogant nincompoop lost for argument up there in lights. No "supporting
evidence" of this needed either since my reply is plainly self-validating.
Stated with no evidence whatsoever and with plenty of arrogant authoritarian
hatred for me because of some trivial slight in the past. Grow up you silly old
man.
Post by James Christophers
So you say while closing your ears and eyes to the fact that it serves as a
salutary reminder to you of your own silliness, which is precisely why I cited
it in the first place. Fact is, the substance of what I gave has everything to
do with what you wrote, and you you know cannot possibly show otherwise.
No it does not and you cannot possibly show that it does; It for you to provide
evidence not for me to prove otherwise. You have failed once more.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
and we all know it.
“We”. There you go yet again with yet another gratuitous and unverifiable
presumption.
Just as you have without pause in this thread.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
James Christophers is correct and you know it Tony.
Quite so.
James Christophers has almost never been correct, merely a poseur, entrenched
in his silly pretence at being someone with that born name and whose real
persona is a proven inverted snob (a particularly revolting self-delusionary
creature).
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
To express an
opinion is legitimate, but it is polite and good practice to identify
your comment as such. To assert a fact is also not unreasonable at
times, but when asked politely to give support for your statement it
is dishonest to respond with obfuscation and abuse - your posts
represent classic troll behaviour, Tony.
No they don't but yoours do.
OK, then - prove yours is not" classic troll behaviour".
No, you prove it is. I do not need to prove that your slur is wrong, it is for
you to demonstrate that you have evidence of that stupid suggestion.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
You have just provided an opinion with zero evidence...
Name, exactly, that evidence you seek, but has been absent prior to "Rich's" post?
I don't have to tell you what evidence you should provide. Just provide
evidence or shut up, that is your task as the accuser or supporter of the
accuser. I will not defer to your childish inability to find evidence of
something that is obviously born from an abusive natiure.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
just what you accuse me of ad nausium. (sic - 70% Lain pass, an' all!)
Your Latin score? With your inverted snobbery and inability to avoid being
offensive to any and all that you look down on for being better than you! Yes
that is all you are, an inverted snob. Your ancestors were, I have no doubt,
wonderful hard working people so why have you let them down in such an idiotic
way? Eh Keith?
Post by James Christophers
'Nuff said!
Lain (sic) pass?
Gooses and gander eh Keith? Talk about nausea eh Keith?

John Bowes
2020-12-12 02:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:16:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:56:30 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
- provided we listen and stop panicking.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
Who is panicking?
Both sides and you. That is why you can not see it.
Both sides of what (or should that be who?) You are correct, I do not
see any panic.
Of course you don't, but that doesn't mean there is none.
The 'inconcludable negative', the 'reasoning' behind which was once expanded
A: Suppose you came downstairs one morning for a greenstrainer and found an
elephant in the larder?
B: But there is no elephant in the larder.
A: That's because they're hiding. (Note the sly use of the plural to
intensify the 'reasoning'.)
B: I see. So where are they hiding, then? Tell me that!
A: Well....they must be hiding somewhere, otherwise how could they have they
got away with it for so long?
(The Goon Show - Spike Milligan)
Surreal, I know, but it is this same kind of 'reasoning' - or very close to it
- that underpins "classically educated" Boris Johnson's piffle-waffle strawman
approach to debate when cornered. Blatant in-yer-face intellectual dishonesty.
You may be correct, and you may well be discussing yourself. But that silly
diatribe has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote - and we all know it.
<Utter crap in defense of the undefendable snipped>
Loading...