Remember me
▼ Content

itn


itn15-05-2024 19:40
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
Itn,
Can you prove you're not a robot?
I've read about robots (computers) being able to do some mental operations extremely well and efficiently but nevertheless aren't able to understand points of view that humans easily understand. You seem to miss the point so many times it makes me (and tmiddles) wonder why.
15-05-2024 22:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
Itn,
Can you prove you're not a robot?
I've read about robots (computers) being able to do some mental operations extremely well and efficiently but nevertheless aren't able to understand points of view that humans easily understand. You seem to miss the point so many times it makes me (and tmiddles) wonder why.



Another member who suspected that maybe he was being gang attacked by "bots" was Roj475, who lasted for about 70 posts before giving up on the website, about a year and a half ago.

He started a thread called "General Question in General Forum".

He asked "...would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?"

At one point he noted that: "...it comes over as one person with multiple accounts or a bot.."


When multiple posters are all saying things like:

"Science is not (whatever you said)..."

"You cannot (whatever natural phenomenon is described).."

"You ignore (science, thermodynamics, etc.)..."

"You deny (science, thermodynamics, etc.).."

"You... you... you.."

"Thermodynamics... thermodynamics... thermodynamics...

"Define (your terms or whatever you just said..."

"...unamibiguous definition of 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.."

They all sound like the same person.

But they can't be bots.

AI bots couldn't possibly be so "scientifically illiterate".
15-05-2024 22:59
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
im a bm,
If he's a bot, and that's a big if, he was developed about 15 years ago. That would explain the unsophistication. I'm not so sure about the other posters either.
16-05-2024 22:13
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
im a bm,
If he's a bot, and that's a big if, he was developed about 15 years ago. That would explain the unsophistication. I'm not so sure about the other posters either.



Have you noticed that when you open the website, where it shows the 15 most recently active threads, who always has the "Last post"

A moment ago, it was 14 out of 15 threads where Into the Night has the "Last post".

There must be a reason they don't get any reply.

There must be a reason why nobody else wants to play with Into the Night.

But she is just weeks away from having 22,000 posts.

Her family must be so proud.

Should we throw the big party when Into the Night passes the 22,000 post threshold?

Or should we wait a few weeks longer, postponing the celebration until it reaches the threshold of 22,222 posts.

That would be six twos in a row, and it kind of looks cooler than 22,000.

Wouldn't that be a great place to stop, so site visitors can always see the number 22,222 next to the stupid red parrot picture?
16-05-2024 23:39
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
im a bm,
That's a lot of posts. What would motivate a person to post that much? Seriously, inquiring minds want to know.
16-05-2024 23:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
im a bm,
That's a lot of posts. What would motivate a person to post that much? Seriously, inquiring minds want to know.



Yes, that IS a lot of posts.

What would motivate a person to post that much?

Given the NATURE of those posts, I would suggest that malignant narcissism is one motivating factor.

Loneliness and a desperate need for attention, facilitated by anonymity, in an empty life without meaningful relationships or activities might be another factor.

But I still think that in this case, the bottom line is very simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.
17-05-2024 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
im a bm,
That's a lot of posts. What would motivate a person to post that much? Seriously, inquiring minds want to know.



Yes, that IS a lot of posts.

What would motivate a person to post that much?

Given the NATURE of those posts, I would suggest that malignant narcissism is one motivating factor.

Loneliness and a desperate need for attention, facilitated by anonymity, in an empty life without meaningful relationships or activities might be another factor.

But I still think that in this case, the bottom line is very simple.

The only goal is to be a troll.

You could always stop spamming like you do.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-05-2024 09:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: Or should we wait a few weeks longer, postponing the celebration until it reaches the threshold of 222,222 posts.

That would be six twos in a row, and it kind of looks cooler than 22,000.

You plan to celebrate when Into the Night reaches 222,222 posts? What year do you believe that will happen? 2108?
Edited on 18-05-2024 09:20
18-05-2024 21:12
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
Itn,
Can you prove you're not a robot?
I've read about robots (computers) being able to do some mental operations extremely well and efficiently but nevertheless aren't able to understand points of view that humans easily understand. You seem to miss the point so many times it makes me (and tmiddles) wonder why.



Newest insight into possible explanation.

ITN often references God and religion.

"Church of Global Warming", "biogeochemistry is a religious artifact", "religion of climate change", etc.

And "Google is not God" is a favorite rebuttal to any reference found in a Google search.

Perhaps most revealing, "Google is not a source"

I had been interpreting his proclamations as Royal Decrees.

Based on nothing but his own authority as king of omniscience and scientific infallibility. Never citing ANY "source", except maybe the vaguest of references to some law of thermodynamics.

But, "Google is not God" and "Google is not a source".

Maybe God is the "source".

Maybe it isn't the most incredible arrogance of believing his own scientific knowledge to be so superior.

He must certainly realize he has no scientific education, degree, or anything that passes for credibility.

Maybe he gets his superior knowledge straight from the "source".

Maybe it was God who told him that the first law of thermodynamics prevents the escape of helium from the Earth's atmosphere.
19-05-2024 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
Itn,
Can you prove you're not a robot?
I've read about robots (computers) being able to do some mental operations extremely well and efficiently but nevertheless aren't able to understand points of view that humans easily understand. You seem to miss the point so many times it makes me (and tmiddles) wonder why.



Newest insight into possible explanation.

ITN often references God and religion.

"Church of Global Warming", "biogeochemistry is a religious artifact", "religion of climate change", etc.

And "Google is not God" is a favorite rebuttal to any reference found in a Google search.

Perhaps most revealing, "Google is not a source"

I had been interpreting his proclamations as Royal Decrees.

Based on nothing but his own authority as king of omniscience and scientific infallibility. Never citing ANY "source", except maybe the vaguest of references to some law of thermodynamics.

But, "Google is not God" and "Google is not a source".

Maybe God is the "source".

Maybe it isn't the most incredible arrogance of believing his own scientific knowledge to be so superior.

He must certainly realize he has no scientific education, degree, or anything that passes for credibility.

Maybe he gets his superior knowledge straight from the "source".

Maybe it was God who told him that the first law of thermodynamics prevents the escape of helium from the Earth's atmosphere.

Random phrases. No apparent pattern.

Science is not a degree, 'education', or 'credibility'. You don't get to declare 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is atheistic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2024 00:13
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
im a bm,
I don't think he's a robot. A robot wouldn't actually be annoying.
19-05-2024 01:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
im a bm,
I don't think he's a robot. A robot wouldn't actually be annoying.



I never imagined ITN was a robot, but I was impressed by the robotic nature of the posts. The exact same sentences over and over and over.

If it were a robot program for "debate", it does know the names of various "fallacies".

But it is incapable of making an affirmative argument with supporting evidence.

Dr. "No" wrote the program for a purely contrarian argument.

Science is NOT... You CANNOT... There is NO SUCH THING... It is NOT possible to measure... You do NOT... You are NOT... NO gas can.. is NOT a chemical.. is NOT... does NOT... CANNOT...

With a 3-5 word sentence as the ENTIRE argument in most cases... sometimes up to 8 words maybe, to overturn the dominant paradigm.

"Thermodynamics does not cancel gravity."

The fool who was arguing that thermodynamics DOES cancel gravity just got his ass kicked all the way down the street.


ITN appears to be on a mission now, a crusade if you will, against "spamming".

And rest assured, ITN is not responsible for YOUR problems.
19-05-2024 01:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: ITN often references God and religion.

By "often", do you mean "rarely"?

This is why you, moreso than others, need to define your terms. You are completely contrarian.

Im a BM wrote: "Church of Global Warming", "biogeochemistry is a religious artifact", "religion of climate change", etc.

Correct me if I am mistaken but you are the one who raises issues of your religion. Into the Night isn't the one who deludes himself into believing that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow increasing, and in violation of thermodynamics; that's all you. Also, Into the Night is not the one treating an element as pollution or panicking under the absurd pretense that the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity; that's you as well. All of this WACKY Climate religion crap is coming from you. Why are you trying to blame Into the Night for it? Do you imagine that you are going to fool someone other than keepit?

Your religion, like all others, is founded on undefined terms, which you have made abundantly clear. You are the one who often/always raises religious issues and then tries to peddle them as science in one bizarre sermon after another. What I don't get is how you manage to delude yourself into thinking that it is Into the Night doing it.

And we need to have a conversation about your peculiar belief that Google is somehow God.

Im a BM wrote: Maybe it isn't the most incredible arrogance of believing his own scientific knowledge to be so superior.

Correct. It's not arrogance that affords him a superior scientific understanding to yours. An education will do that.

You must certainly realize that you have no ability to contribute to any discussion of science. Your firm belief that your religion is somehow thettled thienth is not enough to make your religion somehow value-added.
19-05-2024 02:07
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: ITN often references God and religion.

By "often", do you mean "rarely"?

This is why you, moreso than others, need to define your terms. You are completely contrarian.

Im a BM wrote: "Church of Global Warming", "biogeochemistry is a religious artifact", "religion of climate change", etc.

Correct me if I am mistaken but you are the one who raises issues of your religion. Into the Night isn't the one who deludes himself into believing that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow increasing, and in violation of thermodynamics; that's all you. Also, Into the Night is not the one treating an element as pollution or panicking under the absurd pretense that the ocean is somehow losing its alkalinity; that's you as well. All of this WACKY Climate religion crap is coming from you. Why are you trying to blame Into the Night for it? Do you imagine that you are going to fool someone other than keepit?

Your religion, like all others, is founded on undefined terms, which you have made abundantly clear. You are the one who often/always raises religious issues and then tries to peddle them as science in one bizarre sermon after another. What I don't get is how you manage to delude yourself into thinking that it is Into the Night doing it.

And we need to have a conversation about your peculiar belief that Google is somehow God.

Im a BM wrote: Maybe it isn't the most incredible arrogance of believing his own scientific knowledge to be so superior.

Correct. It's not arrogance that affords him a superior scientific understanding to yours. An education will do that.

You must certainly realize that you have no ability to contribute to any discussion of science. Your firm belief that your religion is somehow thettled thienth is not enough to make your religion somehow value-added.




I had forgotten all about the cult leader.

"You came here to preach your WACKY religion."

Some religious cults demand BELIEF from their followers.

This wacky religious cult requires DISbelief.

"Climate cannot change."
19-05-2024 02:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: I had forgotten all about the cult leader.

I appreciate your recognition. I don't play second fiddle.

Im a BM wrote: Some religious cults demand BELIEF from their followers.

Finally you provide a candid revelation. Who are your leaders and how did they indoctrinate you?
19-05-2024 02:42
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
ibd,
Your false accusations tell a story.
19-05-2024 02:50
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
Your false accusations tell a story.



Did you also get exposed as a "Marxist"?

Apparently, Marxism has a lot to do with the ubiquitous corruption within the entire international scientific community.

Not just LIARS.

PURE EVIL!

They want to kill off nearly all life on Earth by removing all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Don't you just HATE 'em for that?
19-05-2024 04:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Marxism isn't science.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
19-05-2024 04:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
Your false accusations tell a story.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2024 08:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
keepit wrote: ibd, Your false accusations tell a story.

keepit, your mindlessness tells absolutely no story whatsoever. You are probably mistaken for a potted plant often, causing people to become startled when you move.

You're full of baloney, keepit. Too many false statements.
19-05-2024 17:44
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
ibd,
Always spouting vitriol. How can you stand it?
19-05-2024 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
Always spouting vitriol. How can you stand it?

You are describing yourself again, keepit. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2024 21:47
keepit
★★★★★
(3158)
There's a lot of trash talk coming out of you today itn. What's the problem?
19-05-2024 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
keepit wrote:
There's a lot of trash talk coming out of you today itn. What's the problem?

You are describing yourself again, keepit. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-05-2024 21:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
There's a lot of trash talk coming out of you today itn. What's the problem?

You are describing yourself again, keepit. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.



"You are describing yourself again.."

Into the Night is a PEST.

Doesn't know how to pretend to make an argument about "science" without throwing in a bunch of "trash talk".

They WANT the discussion to be so ugly that it drives away everyone except like-minded trolls.

And they almost succeeded.

The 125 who joined after I first posted are not participating.

Maybe because ALL of them were evil gullible Marxist puppets blah blah blah.
20-05-2024 21:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote:They WANT the discussion to be so ugly that it drives away everyone except like-minded trolls.

And they almost succeeded. The 125 who joined after I first posted are not participating. Maybe because ALL of them were evil gullible Marxist puppets blah blah blah.

You haven't left. It seems you would rather doxx yourself.
20-05-2024 21:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
125 new members joined climate-debate.com after I first posted two years ago.

If they wanted to ask trolls for their scientific insights, they would have gotten plenty of responses.

If they wanted personal attention from trolls, they could have gotten a lot of it.

Almost anything they posted was sure to get multiple replies.

If they wanted to be offered insights into their own beliefs and motives, the trolls would have been happy to tell them that they are scientifically illiterate Marxists who came here to preach their WACKY religion.

If they enjoy being called "moron", "dumbass", "retard", "idiot", etc.

How could they resist such an attractive opportunity?

Apparently, it wasn't attractive enough to keep ANY of those 125 new members.


Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
There's a lot of trash talk coming out of you today itn. What's the problem?

You are describing yourself again, keepit. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.



"You are describing yourself again.."

Into the Night is a PEST.

Doesn't know how to pretend to make an argument about "science" without throwing in a bunch of "trash talk".

They WANT the discussion to be so ugly that it drives away everyone except like-minded trolls.

And they almost succeeded.

The 125 who joined after I first posted are not participating.

Maybe because ALL of them were evil gullible Marxist puppets blah blah blah.
21-05-2024 02:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Stop whining.
21-05-2024 02:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining.



You are slacking in your troll & spam duties.

When I just opened up this site, you only had the "Last Post" on ELEVEN of the FIFTEEN most recently active threads.

I thought that TWELVE out of FIFTEEN was your minimum quota.

And you often do better than that.

I'm sure that you'll make up for it very soon.




Join the debate itn:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
itn417-08-2023 20:24
ITN calls himself The Parrot Killer. Ha!122-12-2021 22:19
Something To Make itn feel Good2226-07-2018 20:15
Have No Opinion, ITN or Wake ? It's whatever you say it is.206-05-2018 03:02
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact