Originally Posted by Clippo:
Rjt wrote:-


How did I guess someone would rise to the bait ! :-)

Presumably rjt & g hall are the ‘silly’ fielders – silly-mid-off & silly point. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

& thanks for confirming my doubt Kernow.

As an expert in cricket I'm sure Clippo knows that it takes courage, knowledge and skill to field in these positions - thank you for the compliment and for confirming that we are right and you are wrong
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Why is he a troll?

Try this definition and read his posts many of them meet the definition

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Originally Posted by :
He seems to know or at least be able to articulate alot more of an argument than the anti-MMGW side. Which is quite a metaphor for the whole discussion.

Have you researched the anti MMGW side ?

verbiage does not equal quality
[Rep]

BonnieDundee, (or anybody)

I suggest you carefully examine g hall's responses and some other posters in this thread even and several others in this E & E sub forum. When they can't reply with fact or even wit they descend into ad hominem attacks & 'troll' accusations.

It would appear that it is he who has behaviour patterns likened to an internet troll according to his wiki link.

The simple facts that he can't get over are that :-

a) The science of GW is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW

b) He has been 'conned' by the Exxon led disinformation campaign and, like them, can't raise a serious scientific objection to AGW. (actually Exxon & co do now accept AGW but g hall hasn't caught up yet).

c) I won't mention a past misdemeanor of his.

So how about posting some 'facts' g hall ????

PS I deliberately left off comments like silly mid off etc. from my first post to see if g hall & others would sieze upon them but they're were obviously too thick to take advantage of that.
[Rep]

But you'll never get from AGW such commentary gems as the immortal

"The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey"
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
Try this definition and read his posts many of them meet the definition

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Not really, he is generally civil and reasoned. Someone like Cassie is a troll, Clippo is not really.

Originally Posted by :
Have you researched the anti MMGW side ?

verbiage does not equal quality

I certainly have researched and it I simply think the evidence proves them wrong. What is more they so often seem to have political agenda it simply robs them of alot of worth in my opinion.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
BonnieDundee, (or anybody)

I suggest you carefully examine g hall's responses and some other posters in this thread even and several others in this E & E sub forum. When they can't reply with fact or even wit they descend into ad hominem attacks & 'troll' accusations.
.

I don't mind g hall at all, but I have noticed that this is the general pattern in this sections, even after Matt Davies left, and that the arguments even just in this forum are very much lacking for the anti-side.
[Rep]

C_Steam wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
But you'll never get from AGW such commentary gems as the immortal
"The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey"

No, & I never expect(ed) to. However, I was also aware of this quote ( by Brain Johnston ? and did it include Dilley as well ? - help us out Kernow please) but I honestly left a lot of any such quips out for all of you to have a little fun. (Goodness knows there's a huge lack of it here).
........
Thank you for your general support BonnieDundee. The quality of debate from the AGW deniers has never been great here (or other forums I visit) - presumably due to the fact that the 'evidence' is now so wholly one-sided in favour of AGW.
Since those contrarian thinkers have had all their arguments thoroughly debunked, the only place to go for them is ad hominem attacks.

g hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Have you researched the anti MMGW side ?
verbiage does not equal quality

Have you researched anti-MMGW g hall? Please post some reliable data to support your conclusions if you have.

Failing that it would be a good idea to not post pointless drivel.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
a) The science of GW is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW

No it's not

Originally Posted by :
b) He has been 'conned' by the Exxon led disinformation campaign and, like them, can't raise a serious scientific objection to AGW. (actually Exxon & co do now accept AGW but g hall hasn't caught up yet).

Ah the exxon conspiracies which you denied and if you bothered to read my posts there might be something of interest there for you

Originally Posted by :
c) I won't mention a past misdemeanor of his.

and I won't mention yours

Originally Posted by :
So how about posting some 'facts' g hall ????

PS I deliberately left off comments like silly mid off etc. from my first post to see if g hall & others would sieze upon them but they're were obviously too thick to take advantage of that.

usual silly little insults how old are you ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Not really, he is generally civil and reasoned. Someone like Cassie is a troll, Clippo is not really.

In this thread alone Clippo has called me
post 7 "silly"
post 13 "thick"

other threads are just as bad but unlike others I don't go running to the mods because I've been called names
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
I don't mind g hall at all

Thank you but are you sure ?
[Rep]