Remember me
▼ Content

New Posters beware!



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
15-05-2022 10:01
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago
15-05-2022 10:18
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Sealover.If you want to head over to Earth Science Stack Exchange.I have just found it and finding it interesting
15-05-2022 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Just ignore them its not hard to do.My concern was always is there any truth to the global warming claims and 3 years later it would take a lot of compelling evidence to get me to believe the planet is in climate trouble of any sort due to manmade emmisions,The planet is too big



If Jeppe Branner were interested in my advice, one member alluded to something called an "ignore feature".

Nobody would be banned or censored in any way.

I tried to figure out if there were already such a feature on this website, and I can't find it.

Maybe I just don't know where to look.

Would it be technically difficult to install such a feature, if it isn't here already?

I don't know.

I DID express to the site owner my belief that no intervention was required regarding banning anyone or taking time to step in as moderator.

I'd love to know more about what an "ignore feature" is, and whether or not this is something that Branner Jeppe could easily install, if it isn't already here.

Personally, I'd love to have the option to easily avoid having to hear the noise.

Ignore features don't work. They only remove yourself from the conversation.

You seem to spend most of your time whining about what YOU are doing.


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
15-05-2022 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago


This forum is moderated. I am still here, and so is IBdaMann.


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
15-05-2022 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.If you want to head over to Earth Science Stack Exchange.I have just found it and finding it interesting


Why? Because any idiot can answer a question, no matter how little they know?


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
RE: It's still too ugly here to invite my friends15-05-2022 20:19
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago


I agree with you duncan61, that one should have the will power to ignore the bullies.

I started to invite a bunch of students and instructors when I first got here, and had to renege.

The insults are just too ugly.

The two big ****s who have done 95% of the damage have an excellent track record of driving people away.

1600 signed up. 1590 were driven away.

In my case, my first day here I was called a "liar" immediately, accused of being a Communist infiltrator, and ridiculed for not understanding any science.

It shouldn't require extra thick skin to discuss scientific reality on a website.

A moderator would have been good to have in the last seven years.

But, it looks like OTHER websites actually HAVE an "ignore feature".

That may be my suggestion in my next email to Jeppe Branner.

I think he was a bit too unwilling to see the truth of the sociopathic sadist thing.

That was not name calling.

That was just identifying an observable characteristic of the dominant troll.
15-05-2022 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago


I agree with you duncan61, that one should have the will power to ignore the bullies.

I would rather point out their bullying, such as yours.
Im a BM wrote:
I started to invite a bunch of students and instructors when I first got here, and had to renege.

BS.
Im a BM wrote:
The insults are just too ugly.

You make 'em.
Im a BM wrote:
The two big ****s who have done 95% of the damage have an excellent track record of driving people away.

1600 signed up. 1590 were driven away.

False equivalence fallacy. The number of users that ever signed up for a forum is always much greater than the number of active users (except for a new forums).
Im a BM wrote:
In my case, my first day here I was called a "liar" immediately, accused of being a Communist infiltrator, and ridiculed for not understanding any science.

Because you lie constantly, have no clue what science is, routinely discard the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and chemistry; and are a member of the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion that stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
Im a BM wrote:
It shouldn't require extra thick skin to discuss scientific reality on a website.

You deny science. You have no idea what 'reality' even means. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
A moderator would have been good to have in the last seven years.

We have it.
Im a BM wrote:
But, it looks like OTHER websites actually HAVE an "ignore feature".

And they are useless. All they do is remove yourself from the conversation.
Im a BM wrote:
That may be my suggestion in my next email to Jeppe Branner.

Feel free.
Im a BM wrote:
I think he was a bit too unwilling to see the truth of the sociopathic sadist thing.

That was not name calling.

That was just identifying an observable characteristic of the dominant troll.

That was name calling (insult fallacies) and psychoquackery. It is also trolling. Inversion fallacy.

For the past month, YOU have been the dominant troll.


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
RE: I can empathize with the frustration, posting a service certificate.15-05-2022 21:18
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago


I understand why you posted your service certificate.

It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar. A lying pedophile, no less.

Of course, even a service certificate was dismissed as meaningless, like some kind of "buzzword".

Even advanced degrees from the world's most prestigious universities and publications in the world's most prestigious scientific journals are dismissed as meaningless.

Even the vocabulary that real world scientists all understand is dismissed as meaningless. "Buzzwords."

But I think that installing an ignore feature could make a world of difference.
15-05-2022 22:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Even advanced degrees from the world's most prestigious universities and publications in the world's most prestigious scientific journals are dismissed as meaningless.

Universities aren't very prestigious if their degrees are worthless, and journals aren't very prestigious or scientific if they peddle physics violations just to manipulate people.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Even the vocabulary that real world scientists all understand is dismissed as meaningless. "Buzzwords."

They aren't real-world scientists if they are scientifically illiterate and are merely trying to slide by with the help of a smokescreen of gibber-babble and empty buzzwords.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:But I think that installing an ignore feature could make a world of difference.

What's preventing you from turning on your own natural "ignore" function? Whatever it is, it will also prevent you from using any board "ignore" function that is installed.

.
Attached image:

15-05-2022 23:12
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Im a BM wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago


I agree with you duncan61, that one should have the will power to ignore the bullies.

I started to invite a bunch of students and instructors when I first got here, and had to renege.

The insults are just too ugly.

The two big ****s who have done 95% of the damage have an excellent track record of driving people away.

1600 signed up. 1590 were driven away.

In my case, my first day here I was called a "liar" immediately, accused of being a Communist infiltrator, and ridiculed for not understanding any science.

It shouldn't require extra thick skin to discuss scientific reality on a website.

A moderator would have been good to have in the last seven years.

But, it looks like OTHER websites actually HAVE an "ignore feature".

That may be my suggestion in my next email to Jeppe Branner.

I think he was a bit too unwilling to see the truth of the sociopathic sadist thing.

That was not name calling.

That was just identifying an observable characteristic of the dominant troll.


But, you did lie. You had two screen names, though I don't think anyone thought there were two separate people. Suspect the lies run deeper, and freely. This website isn't what you want, but you seem to thing manure-pile science is a good fit here. Never had much interest in manure piles, one of the worst farm chores. Perhaps that experience from my youth, is why I don't see your enthusiasm. Climate change is BS marketing crap as well. So, I really don't care what get's discussed here. My only concern has been politics, and climate change used to mess with my life, and paycheck.

The websites you visit, are entirely your choice. It's your time, to spend as you please. If you don't like a website, you don't have to waste time on it. There are many more, spend the time looking for one that fits your interest. Or spend the time building your own. There a number of free-hosting options, or you can buy server space. Some are cheap.
15-05-2022 23:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:

It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

It is enraging when my hard earned tax dollars are being wasted to save a planet from warming by people who don't have a fugging clue what heat is or how it flows.

Go ahead and tell me more about heat residence time and radiational energy. Then tell me your PhD isn't worthless.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 15-05-2022 23:17
RE: The dominant troll is committing a crime on your website.16-05-2022 03:10
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.



Hello, Jeppe Branner.

You have known my true identity for months now.

But I never once published my name here.

I have now been doxed by the dominant troll.

He has used your website to publish defamatory lies of about person for whom he has provided identifying information - name, former place of employment, etc.

He has been shitting all over your website for years in many other ways.

Now he is also using your platform to commit libel. A criminal act.
16-05-2022 03:26
James_
★★★★☆
(1095)
GasGuzzler wrote:

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:

It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

It is enraging when my hard earned tax dollars are being wasted to save a planet from warming by people who don't have a fugging clue what heat is or how it flows.

Go ahead and tell me more about heat residence time and radiational energy. Then tell me your PhD isn't worthless.



Heat is a flow of energy. A flow of energy is created proportional to
KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT. This is pretty basic.
Can we please move beyond the basics a 6th grader would understand?
RE: doxed worse than I thought16-05-2022 03:36
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
On the thread

"Tell your old college professors about climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry"

Posted and published on 16-05-2022 at 02:35.

IBdaMann doxed a member about whom he has been publishing defamatory lies.

He published the member's full name, age, date of birth, city of residence, high school, names of sons, nephews, mother, place where he worked ten year ago...

If this isn't enough to get him banned, what is?

I'll email this to Jeppe Branner personally to be sure he doesn't miss it.

We're cool like that.

He LIKES what I've been doing here.

Said so himself, didn't he?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.



Hello, Jeppe Branner.

You have known my true identity for months now.

But I never once published my name here.

I have now been doxed by the dominant troll.

He has used your website to publish defamatory lies of about person for whom he has provided identifying information - name, former place of employment, etc.

He has been shitting all over your website for years in many other ways.

Now he is also using your platform to commit libel. A criminal act.
16-05-2022 18:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
sealover wrote:
branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.



Hello, Jeppe Branner.

You have known my true identity for months now.

But I never once published my name here.

I have now been doxed by the dominant troll.

He has used your website to publish defamatory lies of about person for whom he has provided identifying information - name, former place of employment, etc.

He has been shitting all over your website for years in many other ways.

Now he is also using your platform to commit libel. A criminal act.

Nope. No libel here...move along...move along...

YOU published your name and some personal information here. You are the ONLY one to blame. Inversion 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
16-05-2022 18:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:

It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

It is enraging when my hard earned tax dollars are being wasted to save a planet from warming by people who don't have a fugging clue what heat is or how it flows.

Go ahead and tell me more about heat residence time and radiational energy. Then tell me your PhD isn't worthless.



Heat is a flow of energy. A flow of energy is created proportional to
KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT. This is pretty basic.
Can we please move beyond the basics a 6th grader would understand?

Heat is not a flow of energy.


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
16-05-2022 18:12
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Let me guess.This is not true
What is heat energy easy definition?
Heat is the form of energy that is transferred between systems or objects with different temperatures (flowing from the high-temperature system to the low-temperature system). Also referred to as heat energy or thermal energy. Heat is typically measured in Btu, calories or joules.
RE: 2 new members just joined27-08-2022 07:07
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.


2 new members just joined.

Odds are, neither of them will post anything before they realize that they joined the wrong site.

They will look at the many threads and see what kind of discussion is going on.

They will decide it is a waste of time to get involved, like all but ten of the 1618 members ultimately concluded.

Or, they will be among the less than half of new members who go ahead and try to post something.

In that case, they will give up after fewer than three attempts.

One only needs to post three times to become one of the most "active" members at the website.

That is because those who have posted between 5000 and 20000 times have successfully driven them all away.

27-08-2022 07:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
duncan61 wrote:Let me guess.This is not true What is heat energy easy definition?

Just to get it on the books:

Heat is a flow of thermal energy (not just any energy) from one body of matter to another.

Heat is a power rating, not a quantity of energy.
28-08-2022 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
duncan61 wrote:
Let me guess.This is not true
What is heat energy easy definition?
Heat is the form of energy that is transferred between systems or objects with different temperatures (flowing from the high-temperature system to the low-temperature system). Also referred to as heat energy or thermal energy. Heat is typically measured in Btu, calories or joules.


Heat is not a flow of energy. Energy has no temperature. Heat is not energy. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is not measured in joules.


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
RE: climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches13-09-2022 23:29
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches

climate-debate.com is listed among top results for Internet searches using terms such as "climate change discussion website"

Yet there are only a handful of members actually posting anything.

According to the number of "views" listed for the threads, it is the same handful of members who are actually looking at the content of this website.

Yet, there are supposedly 181 Guests online at the time of this sentence.

Perhaps search engines are being deceived by an illusion of thousands of guests per day visiting this site.

When I joined I saw an advertisement here for a website of a local County government department, located in Solano County next to where I live.

The website had general information about climate change and specific information about water conservation policies and coping with local drought, heat waves, and increased risk of wildfire.

Somebody paid for a targeted ad to the only poster anywhere near northern California visiting this website.

Did they believe that all the "Guests online" (now it's down to 160) were real human beings actually viewing anything?

Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

It is unfortunate that they do, because what people find here is... unfortunate.

Mental illness is on full display, and denigrating personal attacks are the socially acceptable norm among a tiny anti science religious cult.

The website owner is fully aware of what the site really is.

I imagine there must be some benefit imparted by directing search engines and advertisers to believe that thousands of guests visit every day.

But the website does more harm than good by being the first stop for newbies who clicked on the top result provided by the search engines.

The number 1619 for members is not an illusion. 1619 real human beings signed up to participate in the discussion. Well below 1% of them liked it enough to stay. The handful who do post have been doing it for years.

So, "New posters beware!"

Advertisers and search engines should beware as well.

I hope that my neighbor Solano County didn't pay too much for that ad.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

14-09-2022 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19230)
Im a BM wrote:
climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches

climate-debate.com is listed among top results for Internet searches using terms such as "climate change discussion website"

Yet there are only a handful of members actually posting anything.

According to the number of "views" listed for the threads, it is the same handful of members who are actually looking at the content of this website.

Yet, there are supposedly 181 Guests online at the time of this sentence.

Perhaps search engines are being deceived by an illusion of thousands of guests per day visiting this site.

When I joined I saw an advertisement here for a website of a local County government department, located in Solano County next to where I live.

The website had general information about climate change and specific information about water conservation policies and coping with local drought, heat waves, and increased risk of wildfire.

Somebody paid for a targeted ad to the only poster anywhere near northern California visiting this website.

Did they believe that all the "Guests online" (now it's down to 160) were real human beings actually viewing anything?

Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

It is unfortunate that they do, because what people find here is... unfortunate.

Mental illness is on full display, and denigrating personal attacks are the socially acceptable norm among a tiny anti science religious cult.

The website owner is fully aware of what the site really is.

I imagine there must be some benefit imparted by directing search engines and advertisers to believe that thousands of guests visit every day.

But the website does more harm than good by being the first stop for newbies who clicked on the top result provided by the search engines.

The number 1619 for members is not an illusion. 1619 real human beings signed up to participate in the discussion. Well below 1% of them liked it enough to stay. The handful who do post have been doing it for years.

So, "New posters beware!"

Advertisers and search engines should beware as well.

I hope that my neighbor Solano County didn't pay too much for that ad.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.


Trying to get attention again?


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
14-09-2022 01:25
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Im a BM wrote:
climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches

climate-debate.com is listed among top results for Internet searches using terms such as "climate change discussion website"

Yet there are only a handful of members actually posting anything.

According to the number of "views" listed for the threads, it is the same handful of members who are actually looking at the content of this website.

Yet, there are supposedly 181 Guests online at the time of this sentence.

Perhaps search engines are being deceived by an illusion of thousands of guests per day visiting this site.

When I joined I saw an advertisement here for a website of a local County government department, located in Solano County next to where I live.

The website had general information about climate change and specific information about water conservation policies and coping with local drought, heat waves, and increased risk of wildfire.

Somebody paid for a targeted ad to the only poster anywhere near northern California visiting this website.

Did they believe that all the "Guests online" (now it's down to 160) were real human beings actually viewing anything?

Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

It is unfortunate that they do, because what people find here is... unfortunate.

Mental illness is on full display, and denigrating personal attacks are the socially acceptable norm among a tiny anti science religious cult.

The website owner is fully aware of what the site really is.

I imagine there must be some benefit imparted by directing search engines and advertisers to believe that thousands of guests visit every day.

But the website does more harm than good by being the first stop for newbies who clicked on the top result provided by the search engines.

The number 1619 for members is not an illusion. 1619 real human beings signed up to participate in the discussion. Well below 1% of them liked it enough to stay. The handful who do post have been doing it for years.

So, "New posters beware!"

Advertisers and search engines should beware as well.

I hope that my neighbor Solano County didn't pay too much for that ad.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.



Not sure why you are so upset/obsessed with this website. Search engines return thousands of crap-sites for various reasons. Mostly, it's profit or politics these days, which was Al Gore's vision, when he opened up the porn sires to the masses. Pre-commercialization, search engines had 'bots', who's purpose was tho find new pages and content. It was pretty basic, and only kept track of tags, and keywords. But, user data became a valuable commodity, and the bot's track everything imagined. This site's metatag probably contains all the right keywords to put it high on the list. Climate Change is purely political, so it get's bonus points. It's not just popularity or usage, but the content. There are a lot of threads dealing with climate change, that check a lot of boxes. Bots wouldn't know the difference between an amphibian, and an alligator.

Basically, if you click on a link, and you don't like the 'porn', there are thousands of other results to click.
14-09-2022 03:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
Im a BM wrote:Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

What makes you believe that you know how many people view it?

Of course, you don't really know how many people view this site except that Google lists it as one of the top ten sites. The rational conclusion is that many people view it, not extremely few.

The reason is that this is probably the internet's top site for critical rationale and independent thinking of political topics through the lens of science and math. There just aren't many sites willing to offer this.
.
14-09-2022 20:46
keepit
★★★★★
(2561)
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.
14-09-2022 21:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
keepit wrote:More of the silent majority ibd.

Correct. The vocal minority jump onto this site so they can bitch and gripe and whine and moan and complain and snivel and cry like fuqqing babies about how valuable information is flowing freely and how anybody can just be totally honest with science and math and logic, willy-nilly, without anyone putting a stop to it. They totaly decry the lack of leftist censorship clamping down on such criminal behavior.

The silent majority, however, silently avail themselves of the freely flowing valuable information and get on with the important things in life.


keepit wrote:Come on now, don't be imaginary.

I'm an imaginary avatar. Where do we go from here?




[*find-SILENTMAJORITY]

.
RE: Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento14-09-2022 22:40
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.



Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.
14-09-2022 22:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

Nice to see you again keepit!

Too bad your batting average remains abysmal.
14-09-2022 22:56
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.



Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

No, it is not imaginary. It exists, and anyone can go to it and see it.

Im a BM wrote:
When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

Okay.

Im a BM wrote:
They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

Nah... this is a very legitimate online forum. How is this website "fraudulent", exactly?

Im a BM wrote:
I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

It's a fairly populous area, so I'm willing to bet that there's a lot of people who view this site who live in that area.

Im a BM wrote:
The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.

You sure love to whine about this, don't you...??
RE: It's Targeted Advertising, Moron15-09-2022 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
squeal over squealed:Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

I hope you're sitting down. I have some bad news for you. You know I hate to be the one to splash cold water on you so I'll put it delicately.

You're a total idiot. It hurts me to be the one to break it to you.

You got the advertising for the exhibit specifically because your IP address indicates you are in that area. It's known as "targeted advertising." gfm7175 probably did not receive advertising for the art exhibit in Sacramento. I did not receive the advertising either. Ask Xadoman and duncan if they got any advertising for Sacramento's Van Gogh art exhibit.

Google did not get to where it is today by having stupid people like you running its advertising.
15-09-2022 16:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
IBdaMann wrote:
squeal over squealed:Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

I hope you're sitting down. I have some bad news for you. You know I hate to be the one to splash cold water on you so I'll put it delicately.

You're a total idiot. It hurts me to be the one to break it to you.

You got the advertising for the exhibit specifically because your IP address indicates you are in that area. It's known as "targeted advertising." gfm7175 probably did not receive advertising for the art exhibit in Sacramento. I did not receive the advertising either. Ask Xadoman and duncan if they got any advertising for Sacramento's Van Gogh art exhibit.

Google did not get to where it is today by having stupid people like you running its advertising.

Interesting thought there, IBD... I can support it by telling you that I did not receive that advertising. Then again, I use a browser that blocks ads, so that might also be why I didn't see it...


But yes, "targeted advertising". Squeal over should familiarize himself with that term.
RE: What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?15-09-2022 21:01
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(194)
What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?

At the writing of this sentence, there is 1 "Users online", and I guess it's me.

There are 3 "Guests online", and this is plausible.

This looks like an accurate measure of actual viewing and activity.

Probably within an hour or two, it will claim that there are 50-200 "Guests online".

This will be implausible, as there will be no additional "views" shown on any threads.

It is implausible that 50-200 people simply stare at a list of threads for 15 minutes.

When it then goes back to showing 3 "Guests online", it will be plausible again.

It may not be "fraudulent" in any legal sense to create the illusion of heavy traffic, but it is certainly a deception.

The website owner is a scumbag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.



Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.
15-09-2022 22:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?

Yes, that's what I asked you.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
At the writing of this sentence, there is 1 "Users online", and I guess it's me.

So? What does that have to do with the legitimacy of climate-debate.com as a forum website?

FWIW, as I type this, there are 3 users online.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
There are 3 "Guests online", and this is plausible.

How do you figure?

FWIW, as I type this, there are 7 guests online.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
This looks like an accurate measure of actual viewing and activity.

... because it agrees with what you want it to be.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
Probably within an hour or two, it will claim that there are 50-200 "Guests online".

It very well might.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
This will be implausible,

... because it contradicts what you want it to be.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
as there will be no additional "views" shown on any threads.

You keep close tabs on the views of all threads on this forum? Did you know that someone can visit the forum without viewing a thread?

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
It is implausible that 50-200 people simply stare at a list of threads for 15 minutes.

... out of the billions of people across the world?? 50-200 at one time out of those billions doesn't surprise me at all...

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
When it then goes back to showing 3 "Guests online", it will be plausible again.

... because it agrees with what you want it to be.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
It may not be "fraudulent" in any legal sense to create the illusion of heavy traffic, but it is certainly a deception.

There is no illusion, dude. Lay off the spiked brownies...

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.

You are a scumbag, and a butt muncher.
16-09-2022 04:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2540)
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.

Wait....was this an applause line?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
16-09-2022 07:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.
Wait....was this an applause line?

Think of all the posters who have denigraded Branner.

Every single one has been a complete dumbass who knows nothing and who has disabling envy of other posters who can think independently, reason critically, follow logic and discuss at the adult's table. They initially pretend to be "hurt" by the independent thinking of others and appeal to Branner to convert the site to a mindless collective through draconian censorship. When Branner does not, they become incensed and describe him as the Hitler they are.

trafn, tmiddles, ceist, robup northert/squeal over/In-My-Bum, ... all of them totally brainwashed, scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, irrational schytt scumbag leftist idiots who hate humanity out of abject, cognitive-shortcoming-generated envy.

They represent the boisterously vocal minority, not the silent majority.
16-09-2022 17:15
James_
★★★★☆
(1095)
Im a BM wrote:
What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?

At the writing of this sentence, there is 1 "Users online", and I guess it's me.

There are 3 "Guests online", and this is plausible.

This looks like an accurate measure of actual viewing and activity.

Probably within an hour or two, it will claim that there are 50-200 "Guests online".

This will be implausible, as there will be no additional "views" shown on any threads.

It is implausible that 50-200 people simply stare at a list of threads for 15 minutes.

When it then goes back to showing 3 "Guests online", it will be plausible again.

It may not be "fraudulent" in any legal sense to create the illusion of heavy traffic, but it is certainly a deception.

The website owner is a scumbag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.



Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.



It's possible they've visited the forum before. And if they read some of the posts then they might be mindful of who posts what type of content. And then when they visit the forum again, they see names they recognize and have no interest in reading about their political views.
What you observed might show that people don't have an interest in ad hominem attacks and pseudo science to explain irrational views.
18-09-2022 17:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
James_ wrote:What you observed might show that people don't have an interest in ad hominem attacks and pseudo science to explain irrational views.

Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there exist some people who read your posts. I'm one of them..
25-09-2022 11:49
Robert Wagner
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.



He wasn' far off.
25-09-2022 15:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12557)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.



He wasn' far off.

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?
25-09-2022 15:33
Robert Wagner
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.



He wasn' far off.

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.
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate New Posters beware!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Eisenhower was right - beware us1316-10-2015 20:07
▲ 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