Message #7964

[19Merlin69]

Sorry, Merlin, your words say one thing, but the way you say them speaks volumes.  You do tend to see only what you want to see, else your own emotionalism wouldn't enter into the argument.

This tactic has never worked for Byron, so I'm surprised that you would even bother; unless this was an attempt at humor...   Attempting to adopt my position so that you can switch with me, unfortunatley, requires that you ignore that I have been consisent throughout - and you have adopted every position available for tenancy on your side of the debate.  I suggest that - if you do not have a confident enough grasp of the facts or the underlying science you should stick with cutting and pasting from the internet.  Your sarcastic condescension is funny though  - don't think that humor was lost on me.   

Point is, if you were dispassionate about it, you'd be arguing less emotionally, more scientifically.  In other words, I detect a bias on your part.

Your antics are so transparent - a little adolescent but with a hint of maturity.  You confuse your terms (using them inproperly in the context) which either means you are young or do not have as good a grasp of the language as you want us to believe.  To be passionate about something does not require one argues/debates emotionally.  One can certainly discuss a scientifically-based subject  passionately - without interjecting emotional material.  An prime example would be my incessant use of logic.  It is a ceaseless attempt to draw the subject away from the shouts of "Tragedy!" and back toward "Reality".  Like it or not, I have never portrayed a dire picture of what will happen if we do adopt the GW model.  I have never claimed that we are all doomed or that any continent, country, business, or individual will be adversely affected by adopting the Kyoto protocol or by curbing carbon emmissions.  Nay, I have done none of this.  On the other hand, how many times have you and your fellows adopted those very same issues as evidence in support?  That's right - you can say it...  I already know the answer.  Comparatively speaking, I have been a model of dispassionate response.  Keeping in mind that "doom & gloom" is never evidence - pro or con, I cannot imagine why it even comes up in the debate...  Oh, that's right, for "popularization" - I almost forgot what role Al Gore played in this whole debacle.

"Point is", I am passionate about the truth, the scientific method and most of all - what we are teaching today and it shows.  However, my replies are punctuated with emphasis - not emotion.  I hope you know understand the difference.