Dr John Dee

As for me, I've got some lantana to get tangled up in. More enticing than bothering with bigots and bullies.

I have a little shadow that goes in and out with me, And what can be the use of him is more than I can see (Robert Louis Stevenson: Child's Garden of Verses ... about the appropriate level of maturity I presume)

Among other things. I'd forgotten about that other obsession of yours to have the last word no matter how banal. So I should leave some space here for you: Given your fondness for unacknowledged material appropriated from elsewhere on the web, perhaps you can nick something from one of your heroes:

And in contrast ...

Post of the week, Mr Old.

Obviously not. You've got a mind like a steel trap, Ben. A permanently closed steel trap.

As for "millions having to pay more than necessary for their energy" that's not what you said (you're doing it again). And just on the sniping: I've made two comments unbidden on this thread, one to Wrecker and one to you.* All my other contributions have been in response to various attempts to distort or avoid or attack what I've said. Not much of a record of sniping in that but read it however you wish since that's what you'll do anyway. I don't happen to share your view that your posts are significant enough to warrant repudiation. They're coming from a doctrinaire denialist position anyway, one which admits no repudiation. You don't raise anything as a contribution to any kind of debate and your primary tactic is (you're doing this again too) merely to try turn things back on anyone who comments on what you've said. * For accuracy I might need to amend that to 3 since I also commented on your grubby little effort on Jara's post. But since yours was, of course, a comment contributed without invitation it presumably meets your definition of sniping ... come to think of it, 3? You'd rack up that many in an afternoon with your gratuitous additions to others' otherwise pleasant conversations. Pots and kettles as they say. I'll leave you to your mirror.

Gotta feel sorry for the kid.

That is true, Mr Old, but he has also been uttering numbers with considerable wisdom recently.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. The censor/censour/censer has friends ... well, servants, you know.

(i) I don't jump to conclusions; (ii) you can call it sniping if you want. I've just commented on some of the stupider things recorded in this thread (well, that's not entirely true, I've more or less ignored most of the really stupid comments, but couldn't help stopping by a bit more frequently after Wrecker's disgraceful attempt to exploit the deaths in Paris). In a broader context, sniping is exactly what most of the denialists (especially those haunting the internet) do; so I feel no particular embarrassment at the term; (iii) I trained as a scientist (geology) even though I chose not to continue with it. I have too much respect for scientific methodology and its processes and constraints to trivialise them by substituting them with rhetoric, point-scoring, cherry- and nit-picking, ridiculous syllogisms (of the 'if x's prediction about b was wrong, y's prediction about c will be wrong') and so on. The one thing you won't catch me trying to argue about are processes that continue to be worked through. But that won't stop me making observations from time to time about the bizarre nature of those arguments when their bizarrerie strikes me; (iv) and I did mention evasion didn't I?

Rhetorical questions are supposed to make enough sense to answer themselves, though. Jara didn't mention CO2. That you seem to have discovered it in his post is probably just another sign of that obsession that you don't have. It's probably a good thing that all those hoaxing scientists are expected to have a few more powers of observation than you. Never mind, you can just add something evasive or sarcastic or condescending since I assume that, like the difference between Marx and Lenin or the current conditions of inquiry into global warming, you wouldn't know irony if it kicked you in the cobblers.

LOL. And you've got the gall to call ordinary working climate scientists 'alarmists'.

A good question 'bub. #3568 is at worst ambiguous in any suggestion it makes about players and evidence (which I observed at the time so it's my fault if I've missed anything defamatory, although I doubt whether I have). And since #3569 challenges the preceding post I can't see how that's a problem.

The existence of the '$11 million' will probably turn out to be just another of Foster's cons. Hope that Charter gets his fingers well and truly burned on this.

Thanks Bing. That says as much as any photograph.

And then turn on the lights.

Will be an interesting test of how a big league responds to that issue. The AFL can hide behind the lounge chair, but Uefa mightn't be able to. And jeez, do the Gooners need the points.

Right there.

I have. Answer: no.

Nothing to do with Karl Marx. So, just a bit of name-dropping to make it look like you know what you're talking about. I hope your jottings on climate change have a bit more authority.

Stop distorting what I've said and stop trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you've said (so much for freedom of speech). You're behaving like a ten year old or Tony Abbott for that matter (I know I am but what are you? ) No surprises really. I exercise my right to take no further notice of your ridiculous prevarications.

Your point being (other than to demonstrate that you know nothing about Marxist theory)?

I guess it's possible that '2014 might be suggesting, especially with the reference to players at the periphery, that not all the players will have known everything about what was going on, although he is occasionally given to overstating things a bit. In all other respects I think you're probably right. The players involved are mainly young, even now. Dragged before an international court (if that's what happens or is happening) I doubt that any of them will have the confidence to think they can start 'massaging' evidence or 'not remembering'.

Are you really that stupid? No need to answer, it's rhetorical. What amazes me is that someone so demonstrably incapable of reading an ordinary English sentence should be spreading garbage all over this and other threads based on some presumption that he knows how to read more technical material.