"The cowards and liars who have shamelessly attacked my character"

By my "approach", I assume you mean civilized, rational debate based on facts? I can see that you disagree with that approach, which is exactly part of the problem! Your approach, on the other hand, is to blow up in a fit of hysteria when challenged and begin firing juvenile insults and personal attacks at your opponent and finally to advocate banning them when your worldview becomes threatened.

Hardly spurious, dude! In your little way, your psychology of narcissistic self-delusion has a remarkable resemblance to your average petty dictator, as bizarre as that might seem!

Okay, your point is that ecoterrorism is not as bad as anti-abortion terrorists because all they do is burn property and threaten people, even though the article cites "four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism" and the "FBI says ecoterrorism is the most widespread and damaging form of domestic terrorism." I'm not so sure I buy into your argument that some terrorists are not as bad as others. From where I stand, they're all terrorists, who have the potential to destroy lives, property, etc. You're making an artificial distinction.

Okay, so now you're saying that "global warming" terrorists are less terrible than your average ecoterrorists because all they do is "tire-slashing"--I'm not so sure I buy into that argument either. First of all, I'm not so sure that "global warming" terrorists limit their activity to "tire-slashing" and secondly, I'm not so sure that you can honestly draw a distinction between "global warming" terrorists and other ecoterrorists!

I don't think so! You have no hard scientific data. Whatever "evidence" you have supplied amounts to nothing more than journalists and politicians with an agenda supposedly quoting scientific speculation and calling it "science". Hardly convincing!

Oh, so your position and behavior are very sensible, I take it? Which is why you resort to hysterical name-calling and advocating the banning of your opponents when you lose arguments to them? Wow! I'm amazed at your rhetorical skills!

You missed the word qualified didn't you...

__________________

Please. My sides.

Fair enough.

But still irrelevant to the original topic (hence my anger)...

I was always saying that. (Altho you spouted so much erroneous **** i couldn't be bothered to add detailed replies to all of it)

Global Warming extremists don't even deserve the term 'terrorist' in the first place

Show me an example of any other activities other than 'tyre-slashing' etc that they get up to. Almost all the stuff done in the name of GW is relatively benign.

And this was just a minor example of how you tried to tie in GW to 'terror' issues by casting your net far too wide and without providing a shred of evidence.

I provided links to summaries of various scientific studies, published in a respected science magazine, and quotes by various experts from the field.

As layman we're in no position to judge the hard data, even if we could get our hands on it. The best we can do is judge the interpretations of experts etc.

The best you managed was to:
a) Guess wildly about the nature of the data available - and get it completely wrong (IE - imagining we only had 20 years worth of data to call on etc etc)
b) Dismiss the combined findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as amateur guesswork (despite obviously knowing nothing about them, and providing no evidence as to why their conclusions should be dismissed in such a way)
c) Repeat endlessly that politicians exaggerate the science, despite showing no evidence for this.

And of course, dismiss the summarised studies i presented.

In other words - you made huge assertions but provided ****-all evidence.

And you do this all the ****ing time.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Here is all the evidence I will ever need when arguing with either Golgot or Yoda!

QED! I rest my case!

Can't believe you're still here, I thought you were away reteaming OJ's lawyer team for your all out assault on Mofo and Chris.
I'm sorry man, but you're a pain in the ass, you're behaving like a little kid, how much longer do you plan to continue your one man war against Mofo because people tend to disagree with you from time to time???
Time to move on, get off your high-horse and live with it, or just go away.

__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

Sorry man, I couldn't resist!

That's scientific findings that clearly demonstrate that a partisan subject's brain literally siezes up in the course of partisan, political decision-making! Don't you think that's hilarious (and relevant)?

Let me post the link again: here

Let me quote some interesting passages from this article:

Why are you still here?

__________________

You guys dont need attorneys, you need to be booked on Jerry Springer.

__________________
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs
www.panicattic.com - Check out the Q&A from Ethan Dettenmaier , director of Sin-Jin Smyth

Since you're still hanging around darkhorse, why don't you go answer the questions I asked you in the King Kong thread...

That stuff will turn your head into mash kiwi.

__________________

Done.

You rest your case that you're not part of the human race?

I was going to say this when the thread was on page two, but as we're nearing page four I'll give it another try.

Trolls disrupt. This troll disrupts by verbal diarrhoea and excessive use of exclamation marks. If it causes you to notice it in anything more than passing and react then it's done it's job.

I'd take these posts an awful lot more seriously if I thought there was genuine feeling behind them and not just someone sniggering up their sleeve at their latest oh-so-tiresomely transcribed paragraph (or seven).

Can it not just be banned sine die? It'll save bandwidth...

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Yods...

Why does anybody even pay attention to the guy? He's a smart troll, which just means he's wasting his time and potential being a petty nuisance in an online forum. Banning him doesn't make a difference because he'll just come back, and it only humors him anyway.

I've got him on my ignore list, and I highly recommend that everyone else do the same. He can't do anything if nobody is listening. It's like he's never here.

Very wise move... and I hope you are just the first of many...

I'm far too nosey to have anybody on my ignore list (even if I knew how to work the thing).

I still say ban it, who cares if the action humours it and it re-registers. All the more reason to ban it again.

Maybe it's just a token gesture, but a gesture which will satisfy us.

I would be more then happy to ban him… but considering Yoda is the one he bombards with e-mail etc., I think it should be his call…

So you admit to being biased and hypocritical in your arguments against me? What more do I need to say? You are essentially admitting that it's okay to ignore the facts while debating, that it's okay to be governed by political bias and emotion. Your implication is that "it's only human".

Dude, there are people in Mississippi who would argue that racism is only human too! What's your point?

I would put you on my ignore list, but because you're admin, I'm not "allowed to ignore you"!