How to get a job working for Apple Computers?

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

For all the new viewers you seem to be noticing climate-debate.com is getting, it is crickets when it comes to comments. I don't track the views as closely as you do, but I do post some of my personal links here, and then track the views on those links, and sharing here can sometimes get me a few extra views.

Have you considered your threads may be getting 200 to 600 more views per day than Swan's because the debates usually have way more pages to read?

It seems this website would never be found unless somebody was searching very specific keywords. Type climate-debate into a search engine, and it won't be found.

However I have found some key word searches that lead to it being found

Search IBdaMann, and this website is on the first page of search results.

Search Northup Climate Debate, and this website in on the first page of the search results.

Search Dorthick Murder Suicide, and this website is on the 4th page of search results.

There are probably many specific word combos that would pull up various threads here.

Maybe nobody says anything when they click on this site cuz they feel like they entered The Twilight Zone. Spooky.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I think your explanation accounts for activity prior to June. By a couple of years ago, Google no longer showed climate-debate.com in page 1 search results for vague searches for "climate change discussion" "climate discussion", etc. That was a big shift. Google used to show this site for a wide variety of vague "climate" and "discussion" search terms.

New members basically stopped joining, with about three exceptions, starting two years ago. As you point out, only more precise terms such as "IBdaMann" would inspire Google to reveal climate-debate.com

I started following "Views" about three years ago, in part to make sense of the sudden surges in "Guests online". Several times a day it would briefly show 50-200, and sometimes as high as 300 "Guests online" all logging within the space of a minute, and then all logging off less than 20 minutes later. I noticed that no additional "views" showed up on the most active thread list after the sudden "Guests online" surges.

I'm still not sure it wasn't the administrator tweaking the system so create more "views", for plausible traffic to corroborate the implausible "Guests online".

But the changes since June continue to surprise me. True, when Swan's threads get no replies at all there is only one page and one post to reference. But almost EVERY thread picks up at least 80 views a day now. Some of mine get nearly 600 views a day now, while others are in the low 200s. It is not indiscriminate, whatever is racking up all the views.

As for the "Twilight Zone" effect, I think it happened most often when Google still directed unsuspecting tree huggers who thought they were looking for a rational discussion about the environment. They saw the home page and its promise of a "place where everyone is invited to have their say on one of the most important discussions of our time"

So, the new members signed up. Then they started looking at the threads to see which discussion would be of greatest interest to them. That's when they realized they were in the twilight zone. Spooky, yes, but mostly just disgusting. Swan's threads, for example, often had overtly racist or homophobic titles.

If you click on "Users" toward the upper left, you get the list of all 1732 of them. More than half of all climate-debate.com members show ZERO posts. Most who joined never posted anything. Second most common are the users who only posted ONCE. There were a LOT of "one post stands" made with new "Users". They took a full step into the twilight zone before they figured out where they were.

But now, they aren't coming because they think they want to join the discussion.

For two or three months now, and apparently more each week, lots and lots of "views" rack up on many threads. Into the Night's old "Basic Dogma" thread was averaging less than 1/4 view a day for about two years, but now even that bizarre rant gets up to 100 views a day.

Whether by humans, bots, extraterrestrials, or the FBI, SOMEBODY appears to have "discovered" this dead website and their "views" are racking up daily.

If it is what I believe it is, you won't see too many new members actually join.

I know what I was doing in May that may have opened the gates for the June surge, which seems to have grown into a tidal wave. Swan will be quick to point out that Facebook or something gets millions of views a minute. But I'm not posting cute videos of cats that go viral. I don't want millions of views. My goals are satisfied if only ten of the new viewers truly understand. Even just one, if it is the right viewer, will be enough to accomplish my mission here.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I think your explanation accounts for activity prior to June. By a couple of years ago, Google no longer showed climate-debate.com in page 1 search results for vague searches for "climate change discussion" "climate discussion", etc. That was a big shift. Google used to show this site for a wide variety of vague "climate" and "discussion" search terms.

New members basically stopped joining, with about three exceptions, starting two years ago. As you point out, only more precise terms such as "IBdaMann" would inspire Google to reveal climate-debate.com

I started following "Views" about three years ago, in part to make sense of the sudden surges in "Guests online". Several times a day it would briefly show 50-200, and sometimes as high as 300 "Guests online" all logging within the space of a minute, and then all logging off less than 20 minutes later. I noticed that no additional "views" showed up on the most active thread list after the sudden "Guests online" surges.

I'm still not sure it wasn't the administrator tweaking the system so create more "views", for plausible traffic to corroborate the implausible "Guests online".

But the changes since June continue to surprise me. True, when Swan's threads get no replies at all there is only one page and one post to reference. But almost EVERY thread picks up at least 80 views a day now. Some of mine get nearly 600 views a day now, while others are in the low 200s. It is not indiscriminate, whatever is racking up all the views.

As for the "Twilight Zone" effect, I think it happened most often when Google still directed unsuspecting tree huggers who thought they were looking for a rational discussion about the environment. They saw the home page and its promise of a "place where everyone is invited to have their say on one of the most important discussions of our time"

So, the new members signed up. Then they started looking at the threads to see which discussion would be of greatest interest to them. That's when they realized they were in the twilight zone. Spooky, yes, but mostly just disgusting. Swan's threads, for example, often had overtly racist or homophobic titles.

If you click on "Users" toward the upper left, you get the list of all 1732 of them. More than half of all climate-debate.com members show ZERO posts. Most who joined never posted anything. Second most common are the users who only posted ONCE. There were a LOT of "one post stands" made with new "Users". They took a full step into the twilight zone before they figured out where they were.

But now, they aren't coming because they think they want to join the discussion.

For two or three months now, and apparently more each week, lots and lots of "views" rack up on many threads. Into the Night's old "Basic Dogma" thread was averaging less than 1/4 view a day for about two years, but now even that bizarre rant gets up to 100 views a day.

Whether by humans, bots, extraterrestrials, or the FBI, SOMEBODY appears to have "discovered" this dead website and their "views" are racking up daily.

If it is what I believe it is, you won't see too many new members actually join.

I know what I was doing in May that may have opened the gates for the June surge, which seems to have grown into a tidal wave. Swan will be quick to point out that Facebook or something gets millions of views a minute. But I'm not posting cute videos of cats that go viral. I don't want millions of views. My goals are satisfied if only ten of the new viewers truly understand. Even just one, if it is the right viewer, will be enough to accomplish my mission here.

Did you start a tutoring business to refer your customers to climate-debate.com?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I think your explanation accounts for activity prior to June. By a couple of years ago, Google no longer showed climate-debate.com in page 1 search results for vague searches for "climate change discussion" "climate discussion", etc. That was a big shift. Google used to show this site for a wide variety of vague "climate" and "discussion" search terms.

New members basically stopped joining, with about three exceptions, starting two years ago. As you point out, only more precise terms such as "IBdaMann" would inspire Google to reveal climate-debate.com

I started following "Views" about three years ago, in part to make sense of the sudden surges in "Guests online". Several times a day it would briefly show 50-200, and sometimes as high as 300 "Guests online" all logging within the space of a minute, and then all logging off less than 20 minutes later. I noticed that no additional "views" showed up on the most active thread list after the sudden "Guests online" surges.

I'm still not sure it wasn't the administrator tweaking the system so create more "views", for plausible traffic to corroborate the implausible "Guests online".

But the changes since June continue to surprise me. True, when Swan's threads get no replies at all there is only one page and one post to reference. But almost EVERY thread picks up at least 80 views a day now. Some of mine get nearly 600 views a day now, while others are in the low 200s. It is not indiscriminate, whatever is racking up all the views.

As for the "Twilight Zone" effect, I think it happened most often when Google still directed unsuspecting tree huggers who thought they were looking for a rational discussion about the environment. They saw the home page and its promise of a "place where everyone is invited to have their say on one of the most important discussions of our time"

So, the new members signed up. Then they started looking at the threads to see which discussion would be of greatest interest to them. That's when they realized they were in the twilight zone. Spooky, yes, but mostly just disgusting. Swan's threads, for example, often had overtly racist or homophobic titles.

If you click on "Users" toward the upper left, you get the list of all 1732 of them. More than half of all climate-debate.com members show ZERO posts. Most who joined never posted anything. Second most common are the users who only posted ONCE. There were a LOT of "one post stands" made with new "Users". They took a full step into the twilight zone before they figured out where they were.

But now, they aren't coming because they think they want to join the discussion.

For two or three months now, and apparently more each week, lots and lots of "views" rack up on many threads. Into the Night's old "Basic Dogma" thread was averaging less than 1/4 view a day for about two years, but now even that bizarre rant gets up to 100 views a day.

Whether by humans, bots, extraterrestrials, or the FBI, SOMEBODY appears to have "discovered" this dead website and their "views" are racking up daily.

If it is what I believe it is, you won't see too many new members actually join.

I know what I was doing in May that may have opened the gates for the June surge, which seems to have grown into a tidal wave. Swan will be quick to point out that Facebook or something gets millions of views a minute. But I'm not posting cute videos of cats that go viral. I don't want millions of views. My goals are satisfied if only ten of the new viewers truly understand. Even just one, if it is the right viewer, will be enough to accomplish my mission here.

Did you start a tutoring business to refer your customers to climate-debate.com?

No, I did not start a tutoring business to refer my customers to climate-debate.com

Talk about a blast from the past! "Nextdoor" looked useful at first, but it turned out to be a nuisance with all the local gossip and 24/7 street corner news updates. Now reminded that the old addy is out there somewhere to be found, I'll figure out how to take it down.

How could I doubt the sincerity of your inquiry, Spongy Iris?

It is quite plausible that you believed I started a tutoring business to refer my customers to climate-debate.com

It was a perfectly reasonable response to my post to search the Internet for a nextdoor.com ad.

It made perfect sense to post the link, along with your perfectly sensible question.

You're certainly not some kind of troll.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

Now at 1050 views, Swan's wisdom is being seen by more people than ever.

All of Swan's threads COMBINED barely got a thousand views during the Golden Age of climate-debate.com

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

Now at 1050 views, Swan's wisdom is being seen by more people than ever.

All of Swan's threads COMBINED barely got a thousand views during the Golden Age of climate-debate.com

The golden age of climate debate.com. Oh you mean before this place was commonly known as a government entrapment site that was pushed on unsuspecting simple morons, like you wanted me to be. That golden age right?

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Swan wrote:

sealover wrote:
New viewers seeing climate-debate.com for the first time can learn something important from this post below by Swan.

This post says a lot about the history of the website. There is no moderator who would remove a post such as this. No requirement that posts pretend to be related to what the home page says the website is about. No requirement that posters display common decency.

In theory, 1732 members are part of the discussion. In reality, it is rare for more than three members to post in a single day, and not unusual for days to pass with no posts at all.

In its early years, there was an administrator who attempted to guide a discussion that dozens of new members eagerly joined. When the trolls moved in, the administrator had lost interest.

For years, new members continued to join and immediately leave. For years, Google searches showed climate-debate.com as a website where someone interested in climate change might find a rational discussion to participate in.

When Google stopped doing that, no fresh game came to be ambushed anymore. After resorting to cannibalism, the trolls who ruled for years left the discussion as well. But Swan wasn't that kind of troll, and he is still here.

I address this comment to anyone who might be a new viewer, because it appears that there are a LOT of new viewers in recent months.

By going to the bottom of the home page, above the big blue rectangle you can click "View older threads". This will shift the display to include threads below the fifteen most recently active. And it will have a column that reveals how many "views" the thread has received.

If the display is CORRECT, there has been an exponential increase in how many "views" the threads on this website are getting. If the new trend is consistent, even THIS disgusting thread will soon rack up more than a thousand views.

Swan wrote:
1. Get plastic surgery to slant your eyes
2. Move to Chinka
3. Dress up like a 6 year old girl
4. Go to the factory and say that you will work 16 hour shifts for a bowl of wonton soup with special cat filling

Congrats, you got the job

PS. I show respect when and where it is deserved. Now wash these dishes again

I actually do not mind if you stomp your feet

You are cute when you stomp

Still holding steady at about 100 views a day!

Swan, your threads NEVER got this kind of attention before.

450 views in four and a half days!

It wasn't until this June, the first time one of my threads got 75 views in one day. It especially surprised me because it was no longer among the fifteen most recently active threads shown on the home page. Then around the 4th of July weekend that same thread got 150 views a day for two days in a row. My other threads started picking up about then as well.

So, there is such constant viewership now that this disgusting thread by Swan keeps getting about 100 views a day.

If all threads indiscriminately picked up the same number of views, I would remain suspicious that someone is trying to create the illusion of traffic on a dead web site. But my threads are outpacing Swan's by a lot, over a wide range of 200-600 views per day. So, I think actual humans are doing the viewing.

Now at 1050 views, Swan's wisdom is being seen by more people than ever.

All of Swan's threads COMBINED barely got a thousand views during the Golden Age of climate-debate.com

The golden age of climate debate.com. Oh you mean before this place was commonly known as a government entrapment site that was pushed on unsuspecting simple morons, like you wanted me to be. That golden age right?

The Golden Age of climate-debate.com was when a team of trolls enjoyed a steady influx of "unsuspecting simple morons" to ambush. They had a good run. Nearly eight years until new prey stopped approaching.

But your personal evolution here is impressive, Swan.

Your threads used to get a few views per week.

This one is getting a few views per HOUR.

Perhaps you should up your game and polish your most eloquent rant.

They don't just ignore you here anymore.