David “fruit fly” Suzuki goes ballistic, and advocates retracting all rights from skeptics. I’m mentioned as some sort of baddie central, but at least I don’t dress up with Santa Claus to scare the kids and ask their parents to send me money. Where’s that DDT when you need it?
From the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/climate-change-denial_b_1325198.html
…
“This public responsibility is especially important in light of the stepped-up efforts to deny the reality of climate change, or the role humans play in it. Cases in point are illustrated by the “denialgate” scandal revealed by the release of Heartland Institute documents and the revelation that Ottawa’s Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of “astroturf” groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.
“There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts, or industry-funded fake science organizations. One place to start is at Skeptical Science. Click on the tab that says “Arguments” for scientific responses to all the main climate change denier talking points.
=============================================================
Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly. WUWT must be having an effect then. In truest fashion, he can’t be bothered to name the website much less link to it, but it is nice to see that I’m irritating him.
– Anthony
UPDATE: It seems all is not well in Fruit Fly land. His foundation website doesn’t even register on Alexa.com due to it having a traffic rank greater than 100K. Lower number is better:
And, “skeptical science” is down in the grass.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/davidsuzuki.org+wattsupwiththat.com+skepticalscience.com
Here’s Suzuki’s traffic ranks by country (lower is better, for example, Google is #1)
And here’s mine:
Must really bite when a web site run by some “evil denier TV weatherguy” kicks your butt in your own country. WUWT actually does more than twice as well in Canada as Suzuki.
Maybe I should send him some “denier swarms” to boost traffic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This 13 year old child claims she was afraid to go outside because of the hole in the ozone. This is an example of what David Suzuki wants people to believe. Those who would tell this child it is ok to go outside and play are the DENIERS which David wants to censor.
This poor mentally abused child is actually David Suzuki’s daughter.
Richard S Courtney says:
March 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm
“There is a very big difference between socialists and communists. Indeed, they are bitter opponents.”
I didn’t say anything else.
“If you want to spout ignorant and offensive nonsense based on your political prejudices then find an appropriate blog. WUWT is not it.”
Do you want me to find the source for my statement? Allright, here we go.
http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm
Willis says . . .
“I read the “damn post” first, my friend, I quoted the whole thing back to you to show you how stupid it was. People like you who go on vegetarian rants in the middle of a thread about David Suzuki are not normal, average, typical, or conventional. You need to get out more, Anton, it sounds like you think the “open range” is the back section of the health food store.”
You still missed the point. The guy was making a joke about Suzuki being like his pet rooster. He couldn’t get the rooster to shut up, so he ate it. That’s the supposed joke that I found annoying because it reminded of someone I knew who ate her pet goats. It isn’t funny, though you might find it hilarious. It’s also old. Countless variants of it have appeared on the Web in recent years. They pop up frequently on conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists. After all, what could be less compatible with bloody Yahweh than kindness to animals or caring about their welfare?
My comment was not a vegetarian rant. Is that how you categorize everything pro-animal? Was the original joke, then, an anti-vegetarian rant corrupting a thread about Suzuki?
I believe farm and ranch food-animals should be treated wonderfully, but I don’t think they should made into pets if one intends to eat them. How is that going to be processed by the animals facing their own deaths?
If this is stupid to you, then I wonder about your articles published on this site. Are they objective, which they appear to be, or do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved? You certainly jumped to a false conclusion about me, using inductive reasoning (i.e., vegetarians oppose killing animals; Anton opposes killing pets; Anton, therefore, is a vegetarian). Is this how you approach science too?
Diane Scaiff says: March 10, 2012 at 11:08 am
I started to read the comments with interest but was dismayed to find that so many were either an a personal attack on Suzuki or the CBC (which is an arms length corporation and only the radio is fully funded by the government). I saw very few comments which actually used facts and logic.
____________________________________________________________________
OK Diane – here goes:
My Summary – The “Mainstream” Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming Debate:
Conventional climate theory, assuming zero feedback, suggests that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in ~1 degree C of global warming.
Warming alarmists say there are positive feedbacks to increasing CO2 (and build this assumption aggressively into their climate models), whereas climate skeptics say there are negative feedbacks.
The skeptics easily win this mainstream debate, because there is no evidence of net positive feedbacks to increased CO2 in the climate system, and ample evidence of negative feedbacks.
Also, despite increased atmospheric CO2, there has been no net global warming in about a decade.
The probability therefore is that “climate sensitivity” to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less that 1 degree C.
Furthermore, I suspect that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is unlikely to happen due to human activity – so we can expect much less than 1 degree C of global warming.
The above ASSUMES that one accepts the premises of the mainstream debate.
___________________________________________________________
BUT there is perhaps a bigger problem with the mainstream debate:
Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales, from hundreds of years on a long cycle, to 9 months on a short cycle;
SO
the hypothesis that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, core to the mainstream debate, apparently assumes that the future is causing the past.
The popular counterarguments are:
a) The lag of CO2 after temperature is a “feedback effect”,
OR
b) It is clear evidence that time machines really do exist.
Both counterarguments a) and b) are supported by equal amounts of compelling evidence. 🙂
This thorny point may not be resolved in my lifetime, but I’ll just remind you of some of the assumptions that are near and dear to the hearts and “logic” of the global warming alarmists:
1. They apparently assume that the Uniformitarian Principle has been especially exempted for their particular brand of “science”.
2. The also assume that Occam’s Razor can similarly be ignored, apparently again, just for them.
The increasing desperation of the warming alarmists is evidenced by their evermore Byzantine explanations of the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century. What is it this week – aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts… the list of farfetched apologia is endless and increasingly pathetic.
Earlier, there was Mann-made global warming, the “Divergence Problem” and “Hide the Decline”. The list of global warmist chicanery is increasingly long and unprincipled.
It is notable that not one of the very-scary global warming predictions of the IPCC has materialized. The IPCC has demonstrated negative predictive skill. All its scary predictions have proven false.
To Tom Harris and Diane Scaiff: while your notion that the rules of debate require us not to attack *Suzuki the man* is commendable on purely esthetic grounds, I think it’s important for everyone here to understand that this is not Debate Club. This is the real world, and in the real world, people’s actions have real effects. David Suzuki has made a career of crafting grotesque distortions of reality in the cause of expanding his own wealth, he is a damnable hypocrite of the most hideously glaring sort, and his activities on this earth have real, negative consequences for *real people*. So your opinion regarding how the discourse ought to be conducted needs to be taken in the appropriate light, which is that it is MERELY YOUR OPINION. Personally, I regard Suzuki as dangerous Fascist scum (and frankly I have found in life that the alleged differences between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are merely linguistic and have no real significance outside Debate Club) and in any sense I can conceive, a traitor to the human species. I am not *jeering* as you put it; I am in a righteously indignant RAGE.
As to the notion that the books Diane reads or Anton’s dietary choices might be germane to the issue under discussion – please give us all a bloody break! Go take your puerile non-tactics back to Debate Club where they belong.
4H kids everywhere are spitting their pop onto their ipads as they read Anton’s rediculous beliefs re pet ranch animals. In order to show the animals u spend “pet time” with them so they can show them off at their best. This tends to increase the auction price. I would venture to guess these kids and their animals are not the pool in which killers are made.
I of course include you, Anton. Back on topic or GTFO.
Anton says:
March 10, 2012 at 1:36 pm (Edit)
So as a result, you went on a long discussion (on a climate blog) about how heartless you think someone was, a person that none of us know.
Actually, I saw the whole post as a brutal truth rather than a joke. We had a dog on the ranch, a greatly loved pet. At some point it discovered the joys of killing chickens. We couldn’t stop it, so we killed it.
I don’t see that as a joke. I do see both as cautionary tales about what happens when animals lose the plot.
I’ve never heard the damn thing in my life. Perhaps it is because I don’t spend even an instant on “conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists”. I leave that to folks like you.
But Anton, none of that belongs here. This is not a conservative political site. It is not a fundamentalist Christian site. We pay almost no attention to that stuff here … so why are you going on about it?
My apologies. I applied the old “walks like a duck” rule, but yes, it’s not always right.
Get a grip. None of that is true, and you know it.
“Processed by the animals facing their own deaths”?? My friend, you’ve truly lost the plot. Any humane rancher sets things up that the animals death is unexpected and instantaneous. And in any case, cows are magnificent creatures, but they’re absolutely hopeless at “processing”, including “facing their own death”.
Facing their own death? What, are the goats thinking “Damn, I wish little Jimmy had treated me mean, then I wouldn’t be all conflicted now that he’s told me I’m going to be killed next week”?
You are 100% right. I had incorrectly mis-categorized you as a vegetarian instead of a follower of Duns Scotus. My bad.
Finally, my articles stand or fall on their own. Either they are right or they are not, and it doesn’t depend in any sense on whether I mistakenly thought you were a vegetarian. Your ad hominem argument is without merit, it’s not about me.
w.
DirkH:
I repeat:
WUWT is a science blog where people of all political, religious and philosophical views discuss science. WUWT is NOT an appropriate site for you to promulgate your political prejudices. Take them elsewhere.
And I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind. I know what I believe and I do not intend to visit smear sites which you commend because – you say – they provide distortions of my political views. Go away.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
March 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm
“I know what I believe and I do not intend to visit smear sites which you commend because – you say – they provide distortions of my political views. Go away.”
It is a pity that you, as one who is in the know, will not contribute to clarify the meaning of socialism to me, who, as an outsider to the whole affair, must try to find my information from the sources I encounter. I didn’t know that http://www.marxmail.org/ is a smear site intending to distort your views. It says about itself
“The Marxism list is a worldwide moderated forum for activists and scholars in the Marxist tradition who favor a non-sectarian and non-dogmatic approach.”
which sounded good enough for me. Let me apologize to you and any other socialist reading this. I shall try to keep any further interpretations of what socialism is to myself.
Willis said . . .
“Finally, my articles stand or fall on their own. Either they are right or they are not, and it doesn’t depend in any sense on whether I mistakenly thought you were a vegetarian. Your ad hominem argument is without merit, it’s not about me.”
————
Whether your science is about you, I don’t know, but of course your attack on me is about you. You derided me for expressing an opinion concerning a bad joke. And repeatedly did so in various forms. If I were resorting to ad hominem, I would have attempted to discredit you on some specific issue or point because of some personal flaw on your part. I never did anything like that. I did ask if you used inductive reasoning in your arguments.
I’m sorry about your dog. That’s a very sad story. But, why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?
My father is a scientist, and has no qualms about putting “research” animals down, but I’ve opposed him on this since I was six years old.
I know about the Christian postings on conservative sites because people send then to me every day of my life. It’s one of things I most dislike about email. Honestly, I would prefer not to know. Cruelty to animals is one of the historically defining characteristics of Christianity, and the reason I abandoned Christianity as a teenager.
Forgive me if I hurt your feelings. I’ve already told you that I enjoy your articles and letters. I was taken aback by your snide remarks about my minor comments on a joke I didn’t find funny. Why would you even notice them? Normally, nobody does. You may think I’m stupid, but I’m not so stupid as to believe for an instant that my comments could ever sway opinion. I’m only a drop in an infinite bucket.
Anton says:
March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
“…To me, the idea of eating an animal one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised goats, named them, played with them (effectively making them pets), then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.”
Anton, as a kid I spent time in the countryside during the summers where everyone either kept livestock, hunted, or did both. Those who honoured the individuality and value of their critters by naming them tended to treat them well, with kindness, just like we do with pets. Keeping in mind that pets for the sake of companionship only are a fairly new and still comparatively rare luxury. Those who didn’t bother to name their livestock often treated them like commodities and animated objects, mistreating them, keeping them under-nourished until shortly before they were to be slaughtered, when they would over-feed them to bring up their weight. It’s simples, really: Anonimity breeds calousness and contempt.
Neither the woman you refer to, nor my or anyone else’s family and neighbours deserve to be called “monsters” for feeding their families and for treating their animals humanely at the same time. Your need to specify “human family,” on the other hand, implying that animals can be seriously and genuinely counted as family members actually classifies you as a monster, or at least a suspicious screw-up in all the world’s societies and cultures. The kind that might favour the well-being or life of a family pet over a stranger. You’re entitled to your cooky urbanite views, but when you choose to insult people just because they are not neurotic nitwits and spoiled ninnies, expect a bit of a pushback.
Anton said, “….why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?”
For a self-proclaimed animal lover, you don’t really know much about animals, do you? A dog that goes around killing chickens will not only kill chickens in a new home as well, but it’s inability to take a cue could lead it to kill pets or a child.
Peter, I wasn’t writing to you, but since you jumped in with more insults, here goes.
I didn’t say farmers and ranchers should ignore their animals or treat them like commodities. I said people should not eat their pets. The woman I wrote about was not a farmer or rancher. She did not raise goats for money or sustenance. She wasn’t poor or starving. She raised goats AS PETS, but when she tired of them, she ate them. Her religion told her she could do this. She was very religious.
In my family, our pets WERE family members, despite my father’s attitude toward laboratory animals. Our dog was my brother, not some dumb animal we kept around for amusement.
Pets for the sake of companionship are not a new phenomenon. The ancient Egyptians had animal companions, and formally mourned the deaths of pet cats. The fact that you grew up in a culture that treated animals an inferiors doesn’t reflect badly upon me. Neurotic nitwit, ninny, kooky urbanite? No. How about somebody who actually doesn’t judge other life-forms based upon some vicious religious scripture composed by ignorant old coots?
Would I favor the well-being or life of a pet over that of a human stranger? Of course, I would. My pets depend on me to protect and care for them. I owe them. They’re my responsibility. This may seem monstrous to you, but doing otherwise would be monstrous for me and to them.
Most Americans with pets consider their pets family members. So how many more names can you call us, or me, at least? I also have central heating and air-conditioning, and all my own teeth. Lord have mercy! I must be really spoiled, doncha know?
Anton,
For some perspective, farm kids in 4-H programs raise their animals, pamper them, give them names, show them at fairs… then auction them off for slaughter. It’s a cruel world. But those animals would not even exist but for the 4-H programs for which they are bred. As it is, the animals have really good lives while they are around. And the proceeds go to the farmers, who can then help make life better for other animals.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Anton said, “….why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?”
“For a self-proclaimed animal lover, you don’t really know much about animals, do you? A dog that goes around killing chickens will not only kill chickens in a new home as well, but it’s inability to take a cue could lead it to kill pets or a child.”
How ridiculous. Dogs kill chickens. Cats kill birds. That doesn’t mean they’re going to kill each other, or Little Baby Peter. I’ve raised over a hundred dogs, cats, chickens, and other critters, all in the middle of a city in a nice neighborhood. And I’ve never had a problem with one of them going rogue and attacking the others. I did have a dog who killed a chicken on a farm, but I took him home, and he was fine.
So, I think I do know a lot about animals, and I’m not a self-proclaimed animal lover, but a real one. I practice what I preach, and it costs me a fortune every year (at least ten thousand dollars in vet bills). Many of my animals over the years have been mistreated and abandoned by humans, and I’ve been their last resort. You better believe I place their lives above those of human strangers, especially humans who mistreat animals.
Truthfully, I couldn’t care less what you think of me. Who are you?
Anton says:
March 10, 2012 at 7:59 pm
———————————-
Anton, your problem is
“Peter, I wasn’t writing to you, but since you jumped in with more insults, here goes.”
Apart from insulting a regular poster here whose stuff I like, your rant insulted me personally, so I let you know why.
“The woman I wrote about was not a farmer or rancher. She did not raise goats for money or sustenance. She wasn’t poor or starving. She raised goats AS PETS, but when she tired of them, she ate them. Her religion told her she could do this. She was very religious.” You are not making sense, Anton. A woman who raises goats as pets, tires of them and eats them because she is very religious. Are you sure you are capable of understanding what a pet is, or that you are a good judge of people’s intentions?
“In my family, our pets WERE family members, despite my father’s attitude toward laboratory animals. Our dog was my brother, not some dumb animal we kept around for amusement.” Did your “brother” bring home female friends of the canine persuasion and did you date them? I can picture the intros at your high school dance: “Yo, dudes, meet my new bitch, Fifi.”
“Pets for the sake of companionship are not a new phenomenon. The ancient Egyptians had animal companions, and formally mourned the deaths of pet cats.” Pets for companionship alone and for no other reason was and still is rare. Only wealthy societies can afford this. All cats in Egypt, btw, were working animals as well as companions. You know, grannaries, mice, snakes creeping into houses?
“The fact that you grew up in a culture that treated animals an inferiors doesn’t reflect badly upon me. Neurotic nitwit, ninny, kooky urbanite? No. How about somebody who actually doesn’t judge other life-forms based upon some vicious religious scripture composed by ignorant old coots? Ok, sure, whatever. Clash of opinions.
Would I favor the well-being or life of a pet over that of a human stranger? Of course, I would….” Right, of course you would; what was I thinking? Okey-dokey, Anton. Well, that should about wrap it up here for me. I can handle quite a range of views, but psychopathology is above my paygrade and moral depravity grosses me out.
Anton says:
March 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Anton, you accused me of the following:
That is an ad hominem attack, Anton. Now you want to pretend you said nothing but a bad joke … and that is a very bad joke after you make an ad hominem attack like the one quoted above. You get your own opinions. You don’t get your own facts. That is an ad hominem attack.
No ad hom? What do you call saying to me “do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved” if not an ad hominem argument?
Because there’s not a rancher on the planet who will take a dog that is a chicken killer, and where we were there was nothing but ranchers. As I have said a couple times, you should get out more. Then you wouldn’t ask dumb questions like that.
Get it straight. I don’t care. I don’t care any more about your opinion of your father’s actions than I do about the your opinions about the unknown lady with the goats. That’s your business, and it has nothing to do with this thread. Take your disagreements with your father up with your therapist, nobody here is interested in your sad tales.
And why do you think they bother you about that stuff and not me?
Could it be because you are a clueless person who, in a discussion about David Suzuki, wants to abuse some lady that nobody knows based on how you allege she treats her freakin’ goats … heck, if I had bad Christian animal propaganda and knew your email address I’d seriously consider sending you some myself. WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE LADY AND HER PET GOATS!!! Take it to some “please don’t eat your pets” thread, it doesn’t belong here.
Your whole story would make perfect sense on a thread where a bunch of quiche-eaters are sitting around discussing how little they know about ranches and chicken-killing dogs and how people who treat their animals really, really nicely and then kill them are “monsters” …
But here, your claims are unpleasant, they deal with people none of us know, they are wildly off-topic, and in general are nothing but a verbal spewing of your ideas on how to treat animals, topped off by your abuse of that family as “monsters” … do you truly think anyone cares if you think some family none of us knows are “monsters”? And do you think that calling them “monsters” does anything but lose you traction on a scientific site?
Frankly, if there was one human on the planet I’d say was totally unqualified to talk about how to treat animals, it’s you. I say that based that on a simple thing You think that people shouldn’t treat their animals real nice and be close with them, that people shouldn’t talk to them kindly and gently, and pet them, that people shouldn’t take as good care of them as if they were a pet, if the people are going to kill the animal
So according to your plan, not only do the animals get killed, but you also want to deprive them of human affection and kindness and companionship while they are alive … someone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them, it’s not the lady you think shouldn’t be nice to her goats.
w.
Peter Kovachev says:
March 10, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“Apart from insulting a regular poster here whose stuff I like, your rant insulted me personally, so I let you know why. ”
Excuse me. What regular poster did I insult? Some guy told a rooster joke, and I griped about it. What does that have to do with you? There was no insult and there was no rant. Willis responded with an insult to me for no apparent reason; I didn’t insult him, either. You’ve taken offense at something that was not offensive or intended to be offensive or in any way connected to you, except in your imagination. You’re being a bootlicking drama queen.
“Well, that should about wrap it up here for me. I can handle quite a range of views, but psychopathology is above my paygrade and moral depravity grosses me out.”
Moral depravity? Really? That’s MELOdrama queen stuff. Let’s see: I’ve been called a heretic, a satanist, a child of Satan, a Buddhist, a pagan, a heathen, a PETA activist, a gay rights activist, a liberal, a conservative, a OWS supporter, a Tea-Party supporter, a Catholic, a Protestant, a militant, a pacifist, a hippie, a yuppie, a society snob, trailer trash, a sensualist, a moralist, a prude, a drug addict, a vegetarian, a vegan, a health food fanatic, a libertine, an AGW denier, a communist, a socialist, a Republican, a Democrat. And now I’m one of the morally depraved suffering from a psychopathology above your pay grade and grossing you out. Good. If you don’t love your pets more than some unknown human stranger, you’ve grossed ME out. Good riddance, girlfriend. Snap, snap.
. _____
dbstealey says:
March 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm
“Anton,
“For some perspective, farm kids in 4-H programs raise their animals, pamper them, give them names, show them at fairs… then auction them off for slaughter. It’s a cruel world. But those animals would not even exist but for the 4-H programs for which they are bred. As it is, the animals have really good lives while they are around. And the proceeds go to the farmers, who can then help make life better for other animals.”
Thanks dbstealey for your input. I know about 4-H, and I agree with some of your sentiments, but the lady in question was not doing anything like this. I can assure Peter (above) that her intentions were well known to everyone.
Willis, who is ranting now?
“So according to your plan, not only do the animals get killed, but you also want to deprive them of human affection and kindness and companionship while they are alive … someone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them, it’s not the lady you think shouldn’t be nice to her goats.”
I not only never said such a thing, I refuted a similar charge from Peter. But, I guess great minds fantasize alike, huh?
My little original comment on a rooster joke was not intended to turn into a ten page controversy. You could have ignored it if you didn’t like it, as you, apparently, think I should have ignored the rooster joke I found so offensive. Maybe you should be attacking the joker for introducing an irrelevant topic to the thread since, apparently, YOU decide what belongs and what does not.
You DID leap to conclusions about me, and you were wrong. Therefore, I questioned whether you’ve done the same thing with others. How is that an insult? How is that an ad hominem attack?
“That is an ad hominem attack, Anton. Now you want to pretend you said nothing but a bad joke … and that is a very bad joke after you make an ad hominem attack like the one quoted above. You get your own opinions. You don’t get your own facts. That is an ad hominem attack.”
I do not now “want to pretend” I “said nothing but a bad joke.” Where did you come up with this? What you misconstrue as an ad hominem attack is a valid question, and I have not retracted it or said it was a joke. It’s a perfectly legitimate question. More so now. You need to look up the meaning of ad hominem; either you’ve forgotten it, or never known it.
Funny, the nicer I am to you, the nastier and more belligerent you are with me. I won’t apologize again for offending you, since you might blow me up. Have a great Sunday.
Anton
Anton says:
March 10, 2012 at 11:27 pm
The nicer you are? You won’t apologize again?
Good thing my coffee was still in the microwave, or I’d be out a keyboard. That is truly hilarious, Anton.
In any case, thanks for the Sunday wishes, much appreciated and reciprocated.
w.
PS—Please consider what your entry into this thread looks like from this side. You showed up here. In your first substantive response, you solemnly tell us you didn’t like a joke somebody told. A freaking joke. My rule is, the web is a huge place, so no matter what the joke is, somebody is bound to be so foolish as to take offense. This time, it’s you. Whoopee.
In response to whatever you didn’t like about the joke, you abused the person who told the joke, and then called some people none of us know, a woman and her entire family, “monsters”.
That’s how you enter a thread?
You come here, and your schtick is to be outraged by something or other, and then try to convince us that some family of your acquaintance are all “monsters”. We don’t know that family, or what they’ve done or not done.
??!?
And you were upset by a joke? Some fool always is outraged, I tell you, outraged, by any given joke. This time it’s you in the starring role, but … why should we care?
And why should we care if some random internet popup thinks that some unknown, anonymous family he knows are “monsters”? Do you understand what bothering us with your unpleasant judgements about unknown people makes you look like? An irritating, judgmental pest, that’s what. I can only sympathize with whoever is sending you annoying tracts.
That’s what I objected to, and still do.
Willis, I’ve been posting to this site for years. I’m not a random Internet pop-up.
The woman in question upset me when I was four years old–four decades ago! I mentioned her because the joker was talking about eating his pet rooster. She ate her pet goats. I was annoyed by his comment, but not “outraged.” You were, however, by MY comment. You went a hundred times farther because, evidently, I struck some horrible chord from your childhood. You’re still ranting, and trying to justify your extraordinary reaction. My original short letter was minor, a passing observation. Your book-length Shock and Awe response was, is, and doubtless, will continue to be, gobsmacking.
Read your letters to me then mine to you. Count the insults in your letters to me and mine to you. I didn’t insult you once. You, on the other hand…
“What are you, Anton, some kind of specist?” –Willis
“[Anton] I don’t suffer arrogant, holier-than-thou fools gladly” –Willis
“People like you who go on vegetarian rants” –Willis
“You need to get out more, Anton, it sounds like you think the “open range” is the back section of the health food store.” –Willis
“Perhaps it is because I don’t spend even an instant on “conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists”. I leave that to folks like you.” –Willis
“You are 100% right. I had incorrectly mis-categorized you as a vegetarian instead of a follower of Duns Scotus. My bad.” –Willis
“As I have said a couple times, you should get out more. Then you wouldn’t ask dumb questions like that.” –Willis
“Take your disagreements with your father up with your therapist” –Willis
“Could it be because you are a clueless person who…” –Willis
“Your whole story would make perfect sense on a thread where a bunch of quiche-eaters are sitting around discussing how little they know about ranches and chicken-killing dogs” –Willis
“[S]omeone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them” –Willis
“My rule is, the web is a huge place, so no matter what the joke is, somebody is bound to be so foolish as to take offense. This time, it’s you. Whoopee.” –Willis
“Some fool always is outraged, I tell you, outraged, by any given joke. This time it’s you in the starring role, but … why should we care?” –Willis
“And why should we care if some random internet popup thinks that some unknown, anonymous family he knows are “monsters”? Do you understand what bothering us with your unpleasant judgements about unknown people makes you look like? An irritating, judgmental pest, that’s what. I can only sympathize with whoever is sending you annoying tracts.” –Willis
I realize you think you’re the height of wit, but insults and sarcasm only work when one actually hits ones mark. None of your assumptions or presumptions is correct.
BTW, I’ve raised many great dogs, including a so called chicken-killer. He ended up becoming best friends with one of my pet chickens. So much for that know-it-all grizzled rancher theory of yours, too. We stupid city slickers sure are wet blankets, huh? Maybe you could show us how to pan for gold when you’re not too busy laying telegraph cable and shooting up cattle rustlers? I can’t wait.
Meanwhile, if this is partly your Web site, as you imply, could you, please, provide a list of your secret Ponderosa rules and regulations that aren’t included in the posted one? Thanks.
Anton
It seems to me that whatever his intention, Anton has hijacked the theme of this thread. This is not a good use of WUWT space, imo.
For those who are interested, please consider http://www.peta.org/
“PETA’s animal rights campaigns include ending fur and leather use, meat and dairy consumption, fishing, hunting, trapping, factory farming, circuses, bull fighting …”
To maintain “journalistic balance”, here is a video for all you meatatarians out there:
Anton,
No point addressing parting shots at me, I’m actually quite good at skimming over or ignoring jejune efforts. (“Girlfriend,” “snip, snip,” ? Powerful stuff, that.)
Willis, on the other hand, won’t let go and will outlast anyone, so get some canned food and bottled water for your duel with him. Willis, I remember reading somewhere here, has some counselling background and since you seem to have been psychically scarred by events when your were four and six, he’s the man for your troubles. My guess is that he’ll have to dust off his Freudian models and therapies. I’ll make sure he doesn’t charge you too much; the fuzzy-critter-killing (castrating?) dad and the deceptive goat-slaughtering (“kids”?) mother figure are classic first-year psych textbook stuff.
I didn’t hijack the thread; Willis did, but then, he runs this site, and can do anything he wants.
Peter, your psychological comments (below) are corny attempts at humor. You’re obviously not a comedian. I’m not the one suffering from egomania (or is it megalomania?). My original letter was quite harmless, but it took two blowhards, you and Willis, to read it and go bonkers, hurling insults, making outlandish assumptions, and spinning on your heads spitting green pea soup, misinterpreting my every word, assuming facts not in evidence, and finding devils under my bed.
Trying to cozy up to the alpha (or is he the beta?) dog is pitiful, but good luck. I’m sure he relishes your support, and may make you his new best friend. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Maybe you could carry his book bag.
I have no intention of dueling with him. He can have the final word (he controls the site, remember) with my blessings; he can win the pointless argument HE invented out of whole cloth. With you as his cheerleader, he can accomplish anything.
[Reply: Willis does not run or control this site. Anthony does. Willis is as free to post as you are. ~dbs, mod.]