Definition of a Troll

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science is not a 'method' or procedure.
A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

...deleted Mantras 17...1a...

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacy (chanting). Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'statistical tests'.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.

Fail.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Hypothesis first, theory afterwards.

A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.
It is not possible to prove any theory True. Only fundamentalists try to do that.
Science is not data. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Science is not a principle.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Fail again.

Nope. The theory of the null hypothesis in statistics

No such theory in statistical math.

Robert Wagner wrote:
instructs you the formulate the null hypothesis and then test it i order to form your theory.

Null hypothesis first.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Troll fails again.

In inferential statistics, the null hypothesis is that two possibilities are the same. The null hypothesis is that the observed difference is due to chance alone. Using statistical tests, it is possible to calculate the likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.

Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Repetition fallacy (chanting). Redefinition fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'statistical tests'.

...deleted Mantra 17...

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

No argument presented. Trolling.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science is not a 'method' or procedure. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means.
A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Science is not a 'research', business, or 'technology'. It is not logic. It is not mathematics. It does not use consensus. only religions and governments do that. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a debugging method. It is not a computer.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.

Religion is not science. Redefinition fallacy.

...deleted Mantras 5...17...1a...

No argument presented. Trolling.

So is your feeble response an indication of your limited IQ or of an equally limited vocabulary, or more likely both.

Into the Night is correct on all points. What point are you trying to make?

He isn't making any point. He's just trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1d...

No argument presented. Trolling.

...deleted Mantra 1a...

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.

Im a BM wrote:Another hint is how many thousands of posts has the troll excreted on the site.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Another hint is how many thousands of posts has the troll excreted on the site.

In Troll Robert Wagner's case, one can notice the lack of any intellectual contribution. He exists only to harass those who don't believe as he does and he spams the board with phony charts and graphs, as though phony charts are supposed to put an end to all disbelief in Global Warming.

That's all he does.

Swan wrote:Says the troll who denies the last ice age and the holocaust as well

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Says the troll who denies the last ice age and the holocaust as well

I demand accountability for both Holocausts, whereas you only recognize one.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?

Just trolling trolls, as I said.

Nope. You troll the entire board. Nobody escapes your spam.

You have not contributed intellectually on either site. You are a troll and only a troll. At least you admit to it.

Only trolling trolls like you, troll.

And whats with the 'we' have established, another indicator of a Marxist by your own definition.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Redefinition fallacy (plurality<->Marxism).
No argument presented. Trolling.

No inversion fallacy, just using the same definition. Another troll?

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Lie. Buzzword fallacy. No argument presented. Trolling.

Troll BS detected. Initiating Ogre protocol.

Discard of logic. Inversion fallacy.

Repetitive BS. Troll confirmed.

Inversion fallacy. Discard of logic. Trolling.

Trolling the trolls.

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Im a BM wrote:
Like the old expression says, "It takes one to know one."

ITN knows that I am NOT a "chemist" because it takes one to know one.

IBdaMann knows that I AM a "troll" because...

If Into the Night had read this post under the impression that it was written by myself, we would learn how "there is no such thing as.." most of what IBdaMann wrote, because his "gibber babble" is nothing but "meaningless buzzwords"

MOST QUOTABLE QUOTE:

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites."

However one interprets the quality of this discussion site, IBdaMann played an outsized role making it what it is today.

Did we already miss the 11th year anniversary of his first post?

Belated edit: I double checked. Yes, we already missed the 11th anniversary of IBdaMann's first post at climate-debate.com

By October 9, 2026, it will be a DOZEN YEARS of trolling here by IBdaMann.

TWELVE YEARS OF TROLLING will be an amazing accomplishment.

His wife and kids must be so proud already for the first eleven and a half.

That is an anniversary we're gonna hafta PARTY for!

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Like the old expression says, "It takes one to know one."

ITN knows that I am NOT a "chemist" because it takes one to know one.

IBdaMann knows that I AM a "troll" because...

If Into the Night had read this post under the impression that it was written by myself, we would learn how "there is no such thing as.." most of what IBdaMann wrote, because his "gibber babble" is nothing but "meaningless buzzwords"

MOST QUOTABLE QUOTE:

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites."

However one interprets the quality of this discussion site, IBdaMann played an outsized role making it what it is today.

Did we already miss the 11th year anniversary of his first post?

Belated edit: I double checked. Yes, we already missed the 11th anniversary of IBdaMann's first post at climate-debate.com

By October 9, 2026, it will be a DOZEN YEARS of trolling here by IBdaMann.

TWELVE YEARS OF TROLLING will be an amazing accomplishment.

His wife and kids must be so proud already for the first eleven and a half.

That is an anniversary we're gonna hafta PARTY for!

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Like the old expression says, "It takes one to know one."

ITN knows that I am NOT a "chemist" because it takes one to know one.

IBdaMann knows that I AM a "troll" because...

If Into the Night had read this post under the impression that it was written by myself, we would learn how "there is no such thing as.." most of what IBdaMann wrote, because his "gibber babble" is nothing but "meaningless buzzwords"

MOST QUOTABLE QUOTE:

"Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites."

However one interprets the quality of this discussion site, IBdaMann played an outsized role making it what it is today.

Did we already miss the 11th year anniversary of his first post?

Belated edit: I double checked. Yes, we already missed the 11th anniversary of IBdaMann's first post at climate-debate.com

By October 9, 2026, it will be a DOZEN YEARS of trolling here by IBdaMann.

TWELVE YEARS OF TROLLING will be an amazing accomplishment.

His wife and kids must be so proud already for the first eleven and a half.

That is an anniversary we're gonna hafta PARTY for!

IBdaMann wrote:
Cross-posted from the Danish mirror site KlimaDebat.dk

___________

A troll is an intellectual coward with a debilitating fear of differing opinions.

Trolls immediately identify themselves by demanding censorship of anyone who expresses differing opinions. Of course they demand "moderators" instead of honestly requesting "censors". Trolls will arrive at an uncensored website and will immediately feel sickened by the independent, critical reasoning of others. Trolls will not attribute the problem to their cognitive deficiencies. They will instead blame those who think for themselves and who have different opinions.

The natural progression is that the trolls start complaining that the website is "dead". Any rational adult will see that the site is fine, but the trolls will insist that "moderators" are needed to prevent the differing opinions that "drive people away." This happens on all uncensored discussion pages. You can see the same thing happening regularly on the English site Climate-Debate. All those who complain about free-flowing ideas have none of their own and are envious of others who can think for themselves.

Why do trolls do this? Why don't they just post in a mindless collective of their choosing, one that has lots of censors to punish, censor and ban different views? The reason is that such websites are already dead. Trolls know that among non-thinking collectives their stupid opinions must be accepted and embraced. However, there is no satisfaction with that. Censors prevent any thinking or learning from occurring.

Climate-Debate is fine. It is one of the internet's best discussion sites. No one needs any trolls to declare that it is somehow "dead" or that any rational adults are somehow being "driven away".
.

Original Post

IBDaMann skrev:
En trold er en intellektuel kujon med en invaliderende frygt for forskellige meninger.

Trolde identificerer sig straks ved at kræve censur af enhver, der udtrykker forskellige meninger. Selvfølgelig kræver de "moderatorer" i stedet for ærligt at anmode om "censorer". Trolde vil ankomme til en ucensureret hjemmeside og vil straks føle sig syge af andres uafhængige, kritiske ræsonnement. Trolde vil ikke tilskrive problemet deres kognitive mangler. De vil i stedet give dem skylden, der tænker selv, og som har forskellige meninger.

Den naturlige progression er, at troldene begynder at brokke sig over, at hjemmesiden er "død". Enhver rationel voksen vil se, at siden er fin, men troldene vil insistere på, at "moderatorer" er nødvendige for at forhindre de forskellige meninger, der "driver folk væk." Dette sker på alle ucensurerede diskussionssider. Du kan se det samme ske jævnligt på den engelske side Climate-Debate. Alle dem, der klager over fritflydende ideer, har ingen af ​​deres egne og er misundelige på andre, der kan tænke selv.

Hvorfor gør trolde dette? Hvorfor poster de ikke bare i et åndssvagt kollektiv efter eget valg, et der har masser af censorer til at straffe, censurere og forbyde forskellige synspunkter? Årsagen er, at sådanne hjemmesider allerede er døde. Trolde ved, at blandt ikke-tænkende kollektiver skal deres dumme meninger accepteres og omfavnes. Det er der dog ingen tilfredshed med. Censorer forhindrer enhver tænkning eller læring i at forekomme.

Klimadebat.dk har det fint. Det er en af ​​internettets bedste debatsider. Ingen behøver nogen trolde for at erklære, at den på en eller anden måde er "død", eller at nogen rationelle voksne på en eller anden måde bliver "drevet væk".
.

Science is not a troll.

Troll is not a chemical.

It don't matter what that foreign language shit say, because if it was anything about "troll", these two sentences are the COMPLETE argument to rebut it.

But if that ain't enough to satisfy ya, top it off with,

"Science is not a chemical troll"

"Trolling is not chemical science"

Science isn't SPAM, either!

And SPAM ain't no pHuckin' CHEMICAL!

And PITY THE FOOL who gullibly believes that SCIENCE is a CHEMICAL.

They deny science!

They don't even know what science IS!

Now, in case you didn't get all that, let us compile two INFORMATIVE lists:

1. List a bunch of things that science is NOT.

2. List a bunch of other things and say that each one is NOT a "chemical".

It don't matter if most of those "not a chemical"s were the name of a specific ion in solution with a very specific chemical formula.

SO WHAT if "carbonate" refers to the carbonate anion, CO3(2-), dissolved in solution as a very specific chemical to be characterized and quantified?

According to GOD's definition: "Carbonate is not a chemical"

The fact that carbonate is NOT construed in somebody's distortion to qualify as a "chemical" negates any potential significance of the carbonate ion for pH buffering in sea water. Which is "buffered" primarily by evaporation and dilution.

Into the Night wrote:
Looks like Robert has run out of anything to say. He's just whining now.

Im a BM wrote: If IBdaMann had been in charge of the Geneva Convention, he could have defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces, and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the favored...

Im a BM wrote: Write another stupid list of things that are not "Science is not..." and another MORE stupid list of specific words that you, personally, unilaterally declare to be "...not a chemical".

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: If IBdaMann had been in charge of the Geneva Convention, he could have defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces, and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the favored...

This is a stupid statement. There was no single person in charge of the Geneva Convention. However, if there had been, then obviously whoever that person might have been, could have defined anything any way he liked.

I'll assume from your sarcasm that you wish the opposite had occurred, i.e. that the Conventions defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the "favored" (whoever the F that is) and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces. I think your desires are stupid.

Im a BM wrote: Write another stupid list of things that are not "Science is not..." and another MORE stupid list of specific words that you, personally, unilaterally declare to be "...not a chemical".

Why is Into the Night somehow at fault for your inability to learn what science is, or for your inability to understand what a category is? Is it his fault as well that you don't understand what evaporation is or how it works? Is it his fault that, due to your scientific illiteracy, you were gullible enough to be sucked into a science-denying religion and now regurgitate the stupidest sermons anyone could be commanded to believe without question?

How about ... the more you bitch and whine and complain and gripe and moan and gnash your teeth and cry like a baby about how your scientific illiteracy is on full display, and that others continue to draw more attention to the fact that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even understand that water evaporates? How about we do that? How about we focus on your inability to grasp the concept of a category? You might very well be the stupidest person on the internet. If you'll recall, you couldn't even figure out how to attach anything or post an image. You dox yourself, beg people to read the personal information you put on the internet, and then complain about those who follow your instructions. If ever there was a more bungling oaf on the internet, I can't think of one. If I were pressed to think of someone more scientifically defunct than you, I'd have to scour elementary schools. If you would only put half as much effort into learning science as you put into complaining about others who notice how stupid you are, you wouldn't be nearly as stupid for people to notice.

"Carbonate" is a category, i.e. there are many carbonates.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: If IBdaMann had been in charge of the Geneva Convention, he could have defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces, and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the favored...

This is a stupid statement. There was no single person in charge of the Geneva Convention. However, if there had been, then obviously whoever that person might have been, could have defined anything any way he liked.

I'll assume from your sarcasm that you wish the opposite had occurred, i.e. that the Conventions defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the "favored" (whoever the F that is) and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces. I think your desires are stupid.

Im a BM wrote: Write another stupid list of things that are not "Science is not..." and another MORE stupid list of specific words that you, personally, unilaterally declare to be "...not a chemical".

Why is Into the Night somehow at fault for your inability to learn what science is, or for your inability to understand what a category is? Is it his fault as well that you don't understand what evaporation is or how it works? Is it his fault that, due to your scientific illiteracy, you were gullible enough to be sucked into a science-denying religion and now regurgitate the stupidest sermons anyone could be commanded to believe without question?

How about ... the more you bitch and whine and complain and gripe and moan and gnash your teeth and cry like a baby about how your scientific illiteracy is on full display, and that others continue to draw more attention to the fact that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even understand that water evaporates? How about we do that? How about we focus on your inability to grasp the concept of a category? You might very well be the stupidest person on the internet. If you'll recall, you couldn't even figure out how to attach anything or post an image. You dox yourself, beg people to read the personal information you put on the internet, and then complain about those who follow your instructions. If ever there was a more bungling oaf on the internet, I can't think of one. If I were pressed to think of someone more scientifically defunct than you, I'd have to scour elementary schools. If you would only put half as much effort into learning science as you put into complaining about others who notice how stupid you are, you wouldn't be nearly as stupid for people to notice.

"Carbonate" is a category, i.e. there are many carbonates.

Eleven and a half years ago you arrived at climate-debate.com, IBdaMann.

I imagine that eleven and a half years ago, there were people in your life who actually WANTED attention from you.

I imagine that the wife and kids were not feeling the love when you retreated to your computer to give the world what for, denouncing the scientifically illiterate morons who dared to use the term "climate change" in discussion.

I imagine there was a time when they would have wanted to spend time interacting with you in a personal way, but you were too busy trolling.

I imagine that they are no longer hoping you'll get off the internet to be with them now.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: If IBdaMann had been in charge of the Geneva Convention, he could have defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces, and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the favored...

This is a stupid statement. There was no single person in charge of the Geneva Convention. However, if there had been, then obviously whoever that person might have been, could have defined anything any way he liked.

I'll assume from your sarcasm that you wish the opposite had occurred, i.e. that the Conventions defined "war crimes" to specify only those weapons and acts committed by the "favored" (whoever the F that is) and exempting all specific weapons and acts committed by the opposing forces. I think your desires are stupid.

Im a BM wrote: Write another stupid list of things that are not "Science is not..." and another MORE stupid list of specific words that you, personally, unilaterally declare to be "...not a chemical".

Why is Into the Night somehow at fault for your inability to learn what science is, or for your inability to understand what a category is? Is it his fault as well that you don't understand what evaporation is or how it works? Is it his fault that, due to your scientific illiteracy, you were gullible enough to be sucked into a science-denying religion and now regurgitate the stupidest sermons anyone could be commanded to believe without question?

How about ... the more you bitch and whine and complain and gripe and moan and gnash your teeth and cry like a baby about how your scientific illiteracy is on full display, and that others continue to draw more attention to the fact that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even understand that water evaporates? How about we do that? How about we focus on your inability to grasp the concept of a category? You might very well be the stupidest person on the internet. If you'll recall, you couldn't even figure out how to attach anything or post an image. You dox yourself, beg people to read the personal information you put on the internet, and then complain about those who follow your instructions. If ever there was a more bungling oaf on the internet, I can't think of one. If I were pressed to think of someone more scientifically defunct than you, I'd have to scour elementary schools. If you would only put half as much effort into learning science as you put into complaining about others who notice how stupid you are, you wouldn't be nearly as stupid for people to notice.

"Carbonate" is a category, i.e. there are many carbonates.

Eleven and a half years ago you arrived at climate-debate.com, IBdaMann.

I imagine that eleven and a half years ago, there were people in your life who actually WANTED attention from you.

I imagine that the wife and kids were not feeling the love when you retreated to your computer to give the world what for, denouncing the scientifically illiterate morons who dared to use the term "climate change" in discussion.

I imagine there was a time when they would have wanted to spend time interacting with you in a personal way, but you were too busy trolling.

I imagine that they are no longer hoping you'll get off the internet to be with them now.

Who cares about you?

Im a BM wrote: Perhaps the person who cares MOST about me was named by IBdaMann along with the address of our apartment, street photos, phone number, everything IBdaMann could find to dox us with.

Im a BM wrote: My son insisted that I not post at climate-debate.com. [/quuote]
I assume he knows well exactly what kind of dishonest troll you are. He was probably pleading with you to not disrupt yet another board with all the standard spam he anticipated you would spew.

[quote]Im a BM wrote: My son was very disturbed by what IBdaMann had posted and took the psycho seriously. Lots of ugly clowns smashing heads videos made an impression.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Perhaps the person who cares MOST about me was named by IBdaMann along with the address of our apartment, street photos, phone number, everything IBdaMann could find to dox us with.

You doxxed yourself and then blamed me. You like to blame other people for your errors, just so you can hear the whining of your own voice. You live for that.

Im a BM wrote: My son insisted that I not post at climate-debate.com. [/quuote]
I assume he knows well exactly what kind of dishonest troll you are. He was probably pleading with you to not disrupt yet another board with all the standard spam he anticipated you would spew.

[quote]Im a BM wrote: My son was very disturbed by what IBdaMann had posted and took the psycho seriously. Lots of ugly clowns smashing heads videos made an impression.

I don't believe you. I bet your son thought the horror clowns were the best thing he'd seen on the internet. I think you are confusing his reaction with his impression of your own trolling and spamming, leading to him pleading with you to not continue posting here. He probably told you that you should apologize to all those good people for all the trolling and spamming, and to please, please, please start defining your terms.

Im a BM wrote: YOU, IBdaMann, created this informative thread which defines a "troll".

Im a BM wrote: The irony of ironies is that you may be so delusional that you are genuinely unaware that YOU are what most everyone else calls a "troll".

Im a BM wrote: Most folks understand a "troll"

Im a BM wrote: Most folks know a troll when they see it

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Perhaps the person who cares MOST about me was named by IBdaMann along with the address of our apartment, street photos, phone number, everything IBdaMann could find to dox us with.

You doxxed yourself and then blamed me. You like to blame other people for your errors, just so you can hear the whining of your own voice. You live for that.

Im a BM wrote: My son insisted that I not post at climate-debate.com. [/quuote]
I assume he knows well exactly what kind of dishonest troll you are. He was probably pleading with you to not disrupt yet another board with all the standard spam he anticipated you would spew.

[quote]Im a BM wrote: My son was very disturbed by what IBdaMann had posted and took the psycho seriously. Lots of ugly clowns smashing heads videos made an impression.

I don't believe you. I bet your son thought the horror clowns were the best thing he'd seen on the internet. I think you are confusing his reaction with his impression of your own trolling and spamming, leading to him pleading with you to not continue posting here. He probably told you that you should apologize to all those good people for all the trolling and spamming, and to please, please, please start defining your terms.

Im a BM wrote: You had NO excuse in the context of any climate debate to post the name of my son,

Im a BM wrote: ...along with address, phone number, map and photos of our apartment, etc.

Im a BM wrote:You can claim that I doxed myself as much as you want.

Im a BM wrote:What you did was sleazy and inexcusable.

Im a BM wrote: And YES, he was genuinely terrified

Im a BM wrote: Not that it is any of your business, but he is 42 years old,

Im a BM wrote:... and he didn't think your ugly clowns smashing heads videos were funny at all.

Im a BM wrote: You are an ugly and disgusting person.

Im a BM wrote: But you are arrogant and obnoxious, condescending and insulting, and you display all the telltale traits of a malignant narcissist.

Im a BM wrote: Your justification that I forced you to dox my son is pHucked up.

Im a BM wrote:I have many reasons to despise you, personally. And I do.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann started this thread to tell everyone that a TROLL is something very different than how most people would define it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: You had NO excuse in the context of any climate debate to post the name of my son,

Correct. I never posted the name of your son.

Im a BM wrote: ...along with address, phone number, map and photos of our apartment, etc.

You didn't specify which information that you posted on the internet you didn't want on Climate-Debate. If it wasn't important enough to be kept off Climate-Debate then, it isn't suddenly important enough now. In other words, shut up, I bet no one is buying your feigned outrage.

Who publishes personal information to the internet, calls on people to look up that information, and then cries like a little baby when any of that information is posted on the site of the originally request?

Who?

Well, Robert R. Northup is one. Are there any others?

Im a BM wrote:You can claim that I doxed myself as much as you want.

It's not so much of a claim as it is an observation. You put all that information out on the internet, not I. You asked posters on Climate-Debate to go look at it, not I.

What am I missing? Yes, you whine an awful lot over problems of your own making, but why do you have to blame others for what you did yourself?

Im a BM wrote:What you did was sleazy and inexcusable.

Whine, whine, whine. Blame others. Blame others. Blame others.

Im a BM wrote: And YES, he was genuinely terrified

I don't believe you.

Im a BM wrote: Not that it is any of your business, but he is 42 years old,

He was not terrified of the clowns. You are lying as always.

Im a BM wrote:... and he didn't think your ugly clowns smashing heads videos were funny at all.

1. It was an animated GIF, not a video.
2. You're just pissed that your son found the clowns to be funny.

Im a BM wrote: You are an ugly and disgusting person.

I'll buy that.

Im a BM wrote: But you are arrogant and obnoxious, condescending and insulting, and you display all the telltale traits of a malignant narcissist.

Who convinced you that your devotion to Global Climate Warming Change somehow makes you a practicing licensed psychiatrist?

Im a BM wrote: Your justification that I forced you to dox my son is pHucked up.

You are the only one bringing your son into this, and now we know that he is 42 years old.

Im a BM wrote:I have many reasons to despise you, personally. And I do.

I know you do. I don't worship your stupid religion. You are therefore obligated to HATE me ... and to reject science. I get it.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann started this thread to tell everyone that a TROLL is something very different than how most people would define it.

1. Correct grammar requires the preposition "from", not the word "than", i.e. "... very different from how most people ..."
2. You don't speak for "most people."
3. You certainly don't speak for anyone when it comes to defining terms.

Im a BM wrote:
You LYIN' motherpHucker!

You didn't just post my SON's name, you also posted the names of my mother, my brother, one of my nephews, and a couple of people I used to work with.

You lie habitually.

You are not worthy of respect or attention.

Im a BM wrote:
Your doxing posts are still available for view in the case of Tim the Plumber's place in England where you seem to believe he lived. The place my sons and I lived in Oakland is still here for display. But Branner removed all the posts in which you named so many people in my life and provided THEIR personal information.

You prove you are correct about the science related to climate by DOXING!

Im a BM wrote:
And you blame the victim like a typical malignant narcissist.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You LYIN' motherpHucker!

You didn't just post my SON's name, you also posted the names of my mother, my brother, one of my nephews, and a couple of people I used to work with.

You lie habitually.

You are not worthy of respect or attention.

Inversion fallacy. Stop making shit up.

Im a BM wrote:
Your doxing posts are still available for view in the case of Tim the Plumber's place in England where you seem to believe he lived. The place my sons and I lived in Oakland is still here for display. But Branner removed all the posts in which you named so many people in my life and provided THEIR personal information.

You prove you are correct about the science related to climate by DOXING!

Stop making shit up. You doxed yourself. You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
And you blame the victim like a typical malignant narcissist.

You are not a victim. You doxed yourself.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You LYIN' motherpHucker!

You didn't just post my SON's name, you also posted the names of my mother, my brother, one of my nephews, and a couple of people I used to work with.

You lie habitually.

You are not worthy of respect or attention.

Inversion fallacy. Stop making shit up.

Im a BM wrote:
Your doxing posts are still available for view in the case of Tim the Plumber's place in England where you seem to believe he lived. The place my sons and I lived in Oakland is still here for display. But Branner removed all the posts in which you named so many people in my life and provided THEIR personal information.

You prove you are correct about the science related to climate by DOXING!

Stop making shit up. You doxed yourself. You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
And you blame the victim like a typical malignant narcissist.

You are not a victim. You doxed yourself.

Clearly, I doxed MYSELF!

Im a BM wrote:
I just used IBdaMann's membership and hacked his computer to post it here.

I am THAT damn sneaky and sleazy!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You LYIN' motherpHucker!

You didn't just post my SON's name, you also posted the names of my mother, my brother, one of my nephews, and a couple of people I used to work with.

You lie habitually.

You are not worthy of respect or attention.

Inversion fallacy. Stop making shit up.

Im a BM wrote:
Your doxing posts are still available for view in the case of Tim the Plumber's place in England where you seem to believe he lived. The place my sons and I lived in Oakland is still here for display. But Branner removed all the posts in which you named so many people in my life and provided THEIR personal information.

You prove you are correct about the science related to climate by DOXING!

Stop making shit up. You doxed yourself. You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
And you blame the victim like a typical malignant narcissist.

You are not a victim. You doxed yourself.

Clearly, I doxed MYSELF!

That you did.

Im a BM wrote:
I just used IBdaMann's membership and hacked his computer to post it here.

I am THAT damn sneaky and sleazy!

You are not IBdaMann.
You doxed yourself.
You cannot blame your action on IBdaMann or anybody else.

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a troll.
A troll is not a chemical.
A chemical troll is not science.
Troll science is not chemistry.
Mantra 8647