Java Jive wrote:

On 19 Sep 2013 15:09:05 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

You reveal yet again that you cannot be a senior academic.

The review process compares a submission with what is already known
and for internal logical and experimental consistency. To do that
will often involve referring back to previous papers or results.

First wriggle...."...will often..."

Will often does not mean "will always", but equally it doesn't mean
"will never", and you have never posted a creditable link yet.

Your first wriggle, as you note.

You always need to justify what you claim, but in fact rarely bother.
In recent threads where we have notably clashed, you have not seen fit
to support a single argument with a link:

No. when I am deconstructing the internal logic of your contributions,
I need no links, which is what I have been claiming all along. but
thanks for confirming that for me.

You wouldn't know internal logic if it hit you in the face. Witness
the mess you've made by constantly moving the goalposts in this
subthread. You seem to have an attention span of about 10 seconds or
less.

Thread Title TF JJ
=========================
Lies ! Lies ! It's all lies ... 0 6
BBC's Scientific Experts ... 0 11
The true cost of wind... 1/2 24 1/2 *

* The 1/2 points are for where you actually bothered to look something
up, for once, but then left it to others to find your source.

This is a consistent pattern of behaviour of yours. I've given such
statistics before.

Others here are free to make up their own minds, but I do not believe
the above is the behaviour of a senior academic. It seems to me the
behaviour of a common-or-garden internet troll.

Well, while I'm loathe to enter a popularity contest, the others on
here are free to note that the other person on here with appropriate
credentials, takes the same view of your postings as I do. Either he
and I have the same blinkers on, or you have a problem.

I think most of us can see that you both have the same blinkers on.

It is you who keeps moving the goalposts ...

Second wriggle.

Your second wriggle, as you note.

In response to my accusation of partiality by the Daily Mail, you
said:

On 17 Sep 2013 17:54:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Tell that to the BBC

Then, when the discussion had moved on the BBC, you said:

On 18 Sep 2013 07:46:59 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

So you also have no radio, no internet, no newspapers, and never
visit your local library.

Then, when the discussion had moved back to the bias of newspapers,
which at least was getting the subthread just about back on topic at
last, you said:

On 19 Sep 2013 08:08:24 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

You have now introduced the concept
(otherwise known as moving the goalposts) of 'too biased'.

But that was actually the start of the whole subthread in the first
place!

FXShakes head in disbelief/FX

It was *you* that wanted the BBC's output on the topic.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC?!

Third wriggle.

Your third wriggle, as you note.

How many times do I have to remind you that is was YOU that chose to
wait for the BBC's take on the IPCC report, and how many times do I
have to tell you that it was YOU who chose to ignore other channels of
information?

How many times must I remind you that it was you who first mentioned
the BBC???!!!

... and all this ****ing in the wind since trying to twist logic on
your part is merely a smokescreen to enable you to escape with as much
dignity as you can scrape together. But hey, I'll be generous and let
it go, if you will, after all, it's hardly important.

I rather thought it was the BBC's twisted logic you were interested
in.

How many times must I remind you that it was YOU who first mentioned
the BBC??!!

Fourth wriggle. See 'third wriggle' above.

Your fourth wriggle, as you note.

But reading your posts in this sub-thread, you choose your output
according to their bias. That is unscientific.

I choose my output for impartiality, credibility, and trustworthiness.
Judging by the worthlessness of your contributions here, you would be
well-advised to do the same. In particular, it might have helped you
avoid the notable egg that you have recently had on your face.

You might think you choose so, but the fact that you limit yourself
to the BBC's output suggests otherwise.

False assumption. I never said that I limited myself to the BBC's
output.

Most of them are available at your local library, and most households
have a radio of some sort. If you don't have one, you might like to
consider getting one. BBC radio (among several thousand others) is
easily available over 3G. You could listen to the car radio, perhaps.

I don't need your advice about how to listen to the radio, watch TV,
or use a local library.

But it seems you do.

Advice from you about any subject under the sun would likely to be so
biased as to make it worthless.

This is getting to be like a converation with someone mentally
impaired

Oh, I quite agree, and I'm hoping for early improvement in your
behaviour, probably a triumph of hope over expectation on my part.

It's really very simple. All you've got to do is stop behaving like a
jerk yourself, so saving others from having to stoop to your level.

It seems to be a general tactic of those on shaky ground whereby they
accuse others of the very things they do themselves. Hence, I can see
this is going to be a long job.
--
Terry Fields