Andy Revkin's Rent Party
UPDATE: Joe Romm contributes generously to the rent party, with many links, Steve Easterbrook serendipitously at the very same time, crashes the party, and Eli, Eli, as you can see below, is a very moderate bunny. Read it all for many details and excellent analysis.
In commenting on the well verneer veneer footnoted** "Heaven and Earth" Michael Ashley concluded that
Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.but Eli sadly notes that neither Velikovsy's nor von Daniken's book have languished on the shelves, and, regretfully, Plimer's book has found an audience in spite of being demolished root and branch. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word is a lie, including the binding, but buyers there are aplenty, or at least enough, and Plimer has reaped invited lectures, TV interviews and round the world travel.
Eli asks himself why is this so?. Simply there is money to be made and fame to be reaped. There are lots of ways to make money in the megaphone game. There is the little kid way, get your daddy to pay you to write. Many "think tanks" are happy to play mommy and act as honest brokers in that game. Among our friends, Fred Singer and Pat "Satanic Gassy" Michaels (RTFR bunnies) lead the way.
But this is the INTERTUBE age, and new methods are being invented as we suck down our Sunday morning coffee. A character by the name of Tom Fuller is earning a living over at the Examiner using a get paid for eyeballs strategy. His income is generated by the number of pageviews. To push his peanut forward, Tommy is the climate champion blogwhore. Raising the rent requires confrontation and noise. Fuller has both under control.
Which, in the Rabett's usual go around the circle way, brings us to Andy Revkin. Andy, you may recall, was a science reporter for the NY Times who took a buyout about a year ago (Eli being too lazy to go look the date up), retaining the rights to DotEarth. In essence he is trying to set himself up as the thinking hare's Tom Fuller, but even with the best of intentions, he has to play to the crowd. He blames every climate scientist for not knowing everything
A prime problem with climate science — related to peer review — is that it is implicitly done by very small tribes (sea ice folks, glacier folks, modelers, climate-ecologists, etc) so real peer review — avoiding confirmation bias — is tough, for sure...
Do I trust all climate scientists, research institutions, funding sources, journals and others involved in this arena to convey the full context of findings and to avoid sometimes stepping beyond the data? I wouldn’t be a journalist if I answered yes.Of course, there are members of the tribe who are used to pow-wowing with others at the IPCC meeting, but they, of course, are guilty, guilty, guilty. Yet just to make sure that everyone knows he is an honest broker, Revikin says that he trusts climate science
Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes.Andy does make sure to point to a report of the error on Himalyan glacier melting in the AR4, one of the few, like even a Rabett could count them on one paw, in a huge report. But in journalist calculus, this outweighs everything. Fair and balanced is our Andy. Eli's response was not hopeful (it's number 2)
A really depressing post, which just about kills any remaining credibility you ever had and it comes right above another one which shows how your ilk jumped on the bandwagon to libel Pachauri. That the original source has been forced to retract is cold comfort, the damage was already done.True, that was the Sunday Times, but what the heck (and Eli posted an immediate follow up pointing out his error).
In the huge IPCC report, only a few mistakes were found. Most of those that you blew hot air into have now been shown to be fabrications (see, for example
the Amazon story, where the Telegraph was forced to take down it's article)yet you have the gall to claim that it is the scientists who are behaving badly.
Revkin is playing the Pielke game, providing excuses for the wrong side of the street, the one he knows is wrong, and then, coyly lifting his leg to do you know what, while insisting to those who object that his heart is in the right place.
Do journalists have hearts? No, they have sources. More to the point, do they have ethics? Is their job simply to play telephone, distorting what others say to them, or to inform. Rabetts inquire.
**
Comments?
Posts
67 comments:
<"To push his peanut forward, Tommy is the climate champion blogwhore."
You're in big trouble now. Tommy's major attack on me is based on my very quickly (within a few days of his launching) pointing out that he was pimping his anti-science blog across the intertubes in order to generate penny-per-page-view income.
Oh, well, come to think of it, you're already on his hate list, so no harm done :)
"Andy makes sure to point to a report of the error on Himalyan glacier melting in the AR4, one of the few, like even a Rabett could count them on one paw, in a huge report."
There are fewer errors in AR4 than in a week's worth of Revkin's blog posts. Doesn't stop him.
I've noticed a (relatively) new technique he's using to blunt criticism. When it's pointed out to him that his post states, in essence, that 2+2=5, he now has the habit of asking, "oh, but did you read what I wrote two years ago, stating that 2+2=4?".
'When it's pointed out to him that his post states, in essence, that 2+2=5, he now has the habit of asking, "oh, but did you read what I wrote two years ago, stating that 2+2=4?".'
Nice summary!
"Eli being too lazy to go look the date up."
It was only 8 months ago. Somehow teh Rev has crammed 12 pounds of dreck in an 8 pound bag. Tempus fugit.
And it's probably called veneer footnoting.
Word verification: "stsemni". The patron saint of ignorant journalism?
Thanks. Spelling was a good reason for avoiding certain careers.
You mean you got wrong the name of the UK daily that pulled its story after jumping on the climate science bandwagon bash-a-thon this winter? There couldn't have been more than 50 or so of the latter. You're worse than the IPCC rabbit.
Somebody say something about fame and money?
There's a spell-checker built right in to your Blogger thingy. If the word gets underlined in red when you type it, you need to look it up (or right click and pick your poison).
'Course it ain't too good on homonyms.
Your welcome. :)
"'Course it ain't too good on homonyms. "
How does it do on ad homonyms?
In 1910, there were probably less than a dozen people in the world who could be described as "nuclear physicists" - pioneers like Becquerel, Curie and Rutherford.
By 1930, there were a few dozen - there are photographs of all them in the same room!!
By 1940 there may have been two hundred or more. They managed to get most of them to Los Alamos.
Clearly, this science suffered from tribalism and groupthink. Just read their papers and see how ignorant they were!
How did they get that atomic bomb thingy to work at all?
Toby
"How did they get that atomic bomb thingy to work at all?"
The project was secret so they weren't subject to scrutiny by blog scientists and journalists out to "set the record straight"? Therefore they were able to maintain funding and do science and engineering?
But look what happened to Oppenheimer after the war ...
A prime problem with climate science — related to peer review — is that it is implicitly done by very small tribes
If this is a "prime problem" then it's a prime problem in quite a few other fields, not just climate science, given that vast areas of scientific research are fairly specialised. It can also work in the opposite direction to the one Revkin is suggesting (without any actual evidence that this confirmation bias occurs) - in small groups, the competition and in-fighting can be great.
I am coming to the point where I could actually believe that Revkin enjoys stirring up the community of legitimate scientists.
Pays the rent.
Eli is so old that his blogger thingy has a one color ink input device.
There is only one problem with the IPCC AR4 – scientific reticence in the supporting literature causing most AGW effects to be understated. The exception is that snow levels in the Himalaya are rising and in 20 years the great glaciers of Asia will get rain instead of snow. Oh, yes, AR4 got that spot on. Looks like some of those glaciers have been getting rain over the last 12 hours.
Well, sadly, Andy Revkin has decided to enter the highly effective and lucrative game of misinfomration by playing at ambiguous dog. That last reference comes from a poem by Guiterman:
"THE AMBIGUOUS DOG
The Dog beneath the Cherry-tree Has ways that sorely puzzle me:
Behind, he wags a friendly tail; Before, his Growl would turn you pale!
His meaning isn't wholly clear Oh, is the Wag or Growl sincere?
I think I d better not descend His Bite is at the Growly End."
MapleLeaf
Dear Mr. Dr. Professor Rabbit,
Mr. Revkin has raised the issue of "tribalism" in science, which is defined primarily by size of group (smallish, inbred and characterized by, if I have the term correct, "gropethink"). You represent a group size of exactly one, which is highly small, and therefore with minimal genetic diversity (not counting the X and Y chromosomes, assuming male rabbits have such). You are therefore guilty of tribalism and inbreeeding in the extreme. Please henceforth cease and desist in these practices or I shall call in the my fellow coyotes forthwith and ex post pronto. We've had enough thank you.
Sincerely,
Wiley
Dear Mr. Dr. Professor Rabbit,
I wish to apologize for an error in my previous post. Apparently Mr. Dr. Revkin did not in fact raise the issue of tribalism in science; rather, the issue was raised by some "un-named" individuals in an email he received. Mr. Dr. Revkin merely appropriated the issue, like a croc grabbing a baby gazelle by the snout at the waterhole, and then regurgitated it in his weekly blog address to the nation. I do apologize for this oversight. Nevertheless me and my fellow coyotes are still hungry and you are the closest thing available at the moment, and we just received out ACME jet powered roller skates, which are non-returnable.
Sincerely,
Wiley
"How does it do on ad homonyms?"
It ain't no good on them, neither.
Do you suppose there is room in this world for more than one Climate Oracle?
What happens on the offhand chance that Climate Oracle's should disagree?
Is there an Honest Borker Oracle?
It's OT, but how about an "Eli is so old" contest? (The Capitalist can say this because he's almost as old as the Herr.) It's a lot less depressing than a "Journalists are so incompetent and corrupt" contest.
Eli is so old . . .
He blogs on a keypunch and reads email on paper tape.
Dear Mr. Dr. Professor Rabbit,
On an unrelated topic, I am curious as to your use of the term INTERTUBES in two recent posts, referring I believe, to the internet superhighway, through which blog science flows like a torrent during a (decidedly non-AGW related) flood in a Pakistani mountain valley. I had always been under the impression that the correct term was INNERTUBES, from its resemblance, both in terms of general morphology, contents, and output, to the human alimentary tube. Thank you for any clarifications you can provide for the coyotes. We have very few books here and our innertube connection is poor.
Sincerely,
Wiley
The Rev's kin RPJr is the Ultimate Borker.
As for small tribes, I have had occasion of late to scratch the surface of {statistics, econometrics, forecasting} journals and there are fascinating hints.
So far, in this turf, unlike climate-land, where most of the journals seem long-established and often run by professional societies like AGU, or people try to publish key papers in Science or nature...
the turf above seems to have a lot of "entrepreurial" efforts ...
and when one looks at founders, advisors, associate editors and authors ... let us say even a cursory look finds many conenctions.
To pick a topic of current interest, there's interesting chain of connections:
{McShane, Wyner} <-> J. Scott Armstrong {Kesten Green, Willie Soon, Fred Singer NIPCC, Heartland, etc}
Armstrong <-> Bruce McCullough (journal) (McKitrick)
McCullough <-> Wegman (CSDA & referenced in Wegman Report & by M&M)
"He blogs on a keypunch and reads email on paper tape."
Everyone who used to have a chad collection in their office raise their hands! (raises hands)
Blogwhore, eh? Well, you stay classy, dude--just like your commenters here.
Dear Tom,
The truth about you does hurt, that much is clear. You have only your own actions to blame...is it really so hard for you not to lie, to distort and to be ambiguous?
Have an awfully nice day.
MapleLeaf
Tom,the fun thing about you and your friends is how you combine the sensitivity of a Victorian maiden aunt with the self awareness of a jellyfish.
I'm with you, Eli. It's a good time to just go ahead and write off Revkin and NYT once and for all, now that their credibility has officially reached zero.
For some odd reason many of us former Dot Earth commenters kept holding out hope for him. Now, he's more like a wayward child who shows up once in a while to torment us. We show him the door, but it's still a little painful.
Silly rabbit, after four years in the Navy and five cutting down trees in the Pacific North West, my resemblance to a Victorian maiden aunt is probably minimal. However, I have at least tried to adhere to some level of restraint in printed communications, albeit not 100% successfully.
As for self awareness, it's possible you have that confused with self absorption, given that that's pretty much your entire schtick, as I'm sure Ms. Rabett would agree. And in that respect, your commenters provide a convenient counterpoint to your excommunication of your betters, such as Revkin, Curry and so many, many others who fail to listen to your incessant whining about the unfairness of reality, and never, never making a real contribution on anything. Ooh, that darn Revkin! Actually listening to other voices in the debate.
As for maiden aunts, perhaps the personality trait you are best at exhibiting is indeed projection. Have a nice case of the vapors, dude.
Your tricks are for kids.
Never making a real contribution to anything. Yup, that's Fuller's gig.
Wow, carrot eater, it's great to revisit the 3rd grade, and this is the perfect place to do it. Really--the best you can manage is 'I know you are but what am I?' Truly impressive.
"Silly rabbit, after four years in the Navy and five cutting down trees in the Pacific North West"
Probably old growth trees, which Tom is probably certain have no ecological benefit, because after he cuts them down, there are more deer, and deer are what people hunt.
I think we're getting closer and closer to understand Tom "penny per view" Fuller.
And of course, Tom, like so many denialists, thinks that serving four years in the Navy (as opposed to going to university on scholarship), and being able to cut down trees, makes him qualified to dismiss the hard work of thousands of scientists, and to write a book whose hypothesis, if true, would break the careers of the subjects if it did not land them in jail.
Go back to humping porcupines, Tom.
"Wow, carrot eater, it's great to revisit the 3rd grade, and this is the perfect place to do it. Really--the best you can manage is 'I know you are but what am I?' Truly impressive."
This is actually a fair comment if applied to the fuller brush man's efforts to demolish climate science.
I'm just trying to figure out if Victorian maiden aunts humped porcupines...
Dear Mr. Dr. Tom,
We coyotes are exceedingly impressed with your nine years of combined military service and cutting down trees in the Pacific North West (sic). It is clear that you are not a maiden and also that you have the ability to see through the tribalism and inbreeding that is modern climate science. Thank you for doing all these things for America and the planet. If you can make it to the Sonoran desert, which is similar to what it's now like where you cut down those trees, we would like to give you a ride in our giant slingshot and have you cut down some Saguaros which are much in the way of the view and the ride.
Sincerely,
Wiley
Dear Mr. Dr. Coyote, am I permitted to inquire if your slingshot is in fact built by ACME?
Dear Mr. Dr. Tom who is not a maiden,
Yes, you are permitted to inquire, and while we cannot be sure who built our slingshot, it--and quite a number of other interesting devices we have--was distributed by them. In fact, pretty much everything we have is an ACME product. We find that diversity of product lines is anathema, just like diversity of thought, because we are kind of tribalistic, at least for coyotes.
Sincerely,
Wiley
"I'm with you, Eli. It's a good time to just go ahead and write off Revkin and NYT once and for all, now that their credibility has officially reached zero."
What, it's gone up lately?
Dear Mr. Dr. Coyote, I am greatly reassured that your products are produced by a reputable company whose products are only capable of harming coyotes, albeit only briefly.
Could you also correct my mistaken impression, if necessary, that coyotes did not aggregate in tribes, but rather in packs?
V. Faithfully Yrs.
Non-maiden, non-aunt, distracted by your message from energetic humping of porcupines.
Surprise, surprise...Tom lies , again
"fail to listen to your [Eli's] incessant whining about the unfairness of reality, and never, never making a real contribution on anything"
News to Tom-- Halpern et al. (2010)...just one of many examples ;)
And correct me if I am wrong but siding with someone who is emailing physical threats [as you are on another thread] just further shows your true colors and how desperate you are for attention.
PS: Wiley you are very confused, the image that pops up when one clicks on your name shows a road runner, not a lagomorph.
Further, according to Wikipedia while Wiley did try to get the better of Bugs, he failed every time. Example, in Rabbits's feat "Bugs is pursued by Wile E. Coyote, who fancies himself as a "genius" who can easily capture Bugs for dinner. Bugs is able to easily foil Coyote's plans, finally blowing him up with a hand grenade that the Coyote tried to use on him."
And from "Operation Rabbit":
"The Coyote, still dazed and covered in ash, returns to Bugs' hole, rebuilds his door, knocks on it and admits defeat. "Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Mud," he says to Bugs before passing out. Bugs then tells the audience "And remember: MUD spelled backwards is DUM!"
Wiley is obviously not very smart nor successful is he?
Anonymous, I'm not really sure if you're trying to make a point, but if so, you are not quite succeeding. You'll have to be a bit more specific about my 'siding with someone who is emailing physical threat's', which actually does not seem to be physically possible...
As for craving attention, I generally don't even seek it in this forum, as I find it a bit sad, but getting called a blogwhore got my attention at least. Which I assume was the point, hence the subsequent merriment.
However, I'm not really sure you understand that, or much of anything, for that matter. But keep trying.
Dear Mr. Dr. Anonymous,
Thank you for that zoological information and analysis. I shall pass it on to the other 'yotes ASAP, and hopefully Mr. Dr. Revkin will see fit to blog about it on the innertubes coming from New York. Mr. Dr. Revkin is a very smart man, or at the very least he seems capable of having his ear bent by novel ideas that arrest his attention, and forming large generalizations from very little information; this cannot be easy. It is fun to read what he writes and ponder what occurred twixt his ears to make him say those things, 'bout which he pontificates.
Sincerely,
Wiley
Actually, Anonymous, I just remembered that little-used file extension, EPT (Emailed Physical Threat). Opening a .ept file causes a boxing glove attached to an accordion-like extender to reach out from the computer and punch the recipient in the face.
This is Hanna Barbera night, isn't it?
Like Wiley, Tom is not a bright lad, and seems to be delighting in being dense and ignoring the veiled threats made by Mr. Wiley. Tommy is friendly towards Wiley and even seems to be encouraging him, knowing very well that Wiley is making veiled threats against Eli on this blog and by email.....and I hasten to add Wiley knows where to find Eli should he wish to follow through in some of the acts he has spoken of on the other thread (on this blog). And who are Wiley's allies whom he refers to? Or is Wiley simply delusional too?
Tom seems to be attracted to dishonorable folks and losers (like WIley)....no surprises there, but encouraging Wiley, that is a little too much Tommy old boy, now you crawl on back to your gutter.
Anonymous, you and your fellow conigli have an exaggerated sense of self importance. I have no idea what you're referring to, and so your little pinpricks are actually to no effect.
I don't read this blog--there's very little to see here. I show up when my name is called, and see if anything original has been found in the way of insult, slander and ad hominem.
So citing the internal history and politics of this blog does not in any way affect or interest me. Come to think of it, neither do you.
Bye until Rabett's next outburst.
Tom,
So you do not deny what I stated above, instead choosing to indulge in ad hominems (the irony) and arguing straw men. In perfect keeping with your disreputable track record.
Oh, and for the record, I certainly have no exaggerated sense of self importance (anyhow there you go arguing strawmen), my colleagues and the science make sure of that, so I am a very humble bunny and certainly know my place (unlike you). I just do not like people who lie, distort to make money, and and worse still doing so under the pretense of being "honorable" ;)
Now back to that gutter old boy.
Good God, Andy been spiking the punch or what.
As for Wiley, he is going to have to limit hisself to Chicken Mary's
Good grief, this thread has gone off topic. If I may vent to try and bring things back on track (this is a slightly amended post from something I posted at CP).
Personally and professionally I find the continued reference to 'tribes' and 'tribalism' in this 'AGW debate' inappropriate, divisive and juvenile. It was bad enough when Curry decided to erroneously apply this term to climate science, and now we have Revkin blindly parroting it. Andy and Judith, neither of you are anthropologists.
Some context. In South Africa they have many tribes. For example, Xhosa, Zulu and Sotho (north and south) being the largest, each representing millions of individuals. And typically Zulu and Xhosa do not see eye-to-eye, in fact they regularly engage in violent clashes, even though they stand united under one national flag. So I fail to see how Dr. Curry can think that using such a term can build bridges....
Also, is one not born into a tribe? People in true tribes are proud of their culture, heritage and achievements. One does not just wake up one morning and decide to be Zulu.
Using the term "tribe" in the context of climate science, is in my opinion, offensive and disrespectful to those very real tribes around the world, and it is sure as heck not conciliatory or going to build bridges.
I strongly urge Revkin and Curry to stop playing games and to behave responsibly and professionally. If they wish they can refer to "opposing camps", although that phrase should probably also be quantified to state that the camp which understands AGW to be a legitimate concern includes about 97% of climate scientists.
Curry and Revkin make the mistake of equating the two camps, and thereby giving 'skeptics' false equivalence and undue weight (in terms of their lack of education on climate science, their understanding of climate science, their experience in climate science and their contribution to advancing climate science) in this debate.
Perhaps doing so is unintentional, then again, perhaps it is not.
MapleLeaf
Dear Mr. Dr. MapleLeaf,
I find your comments quite disturbing. Clearly, climate change blog science is founded on the idea of "branding", whereby catchy (arresting even) phrases are used to "re-classify" the science and its practitioners. Thus we have "stealth politicizers", courtesy of Mr. Dr. Professor Pielke the Younger, and "The Team", courtesy of Mr. Dr. McIntyre, and of course the long-standing, all purpose epithet "alarmists", which is so long-standing that its origin is unclear. To now add "tribalists", courtesy of Ms. Dr. Professor Curry to the mix (aided by Mr. Dr. Revkin's ability to regurgitate with flair at the national level), is simply the advance of science in its (para) normal course. New epithets are as necessary as the innertubes for real progress to be made. And there is clear evidence for this "tribalism"--for example, how do you explain the rise of Ubuntu, answer me that please Mr Dr Smart Guy.
Wiley, not surprisingly, I am having trouble taking you seriously. Anyhow, you are missing the point. Do we now have to have "tribes" for every competing lab in pharma? Every team working on the Hadron collidor or ICESAT or TRMM or GALILEO? No, we have groups of scientists with different ideas, hypotheses etc. In the case of climate science we not only have groups with different ideas on a scientific problem, but rather a huge chasm in the level of education and understanding of the science. Essentially D-Ks trying to pose as 'citizen scientists' and who have less than honorable intentions (hello there Steve McIntyre) versus the likes of Dr. Trenberth. If they are a "tribe" the "skeptics' and those in denial of AGW are an incredibly inferior "tribe" as shown by their collective behavior, lack of substance and lack of contribution to the science, and really should be ignored for the most part, except they have the Koch brothers on their side and that IS a problem ;)
Please demonstrate which other (similar) scientific disciplines openly use this the term "tribe" or "tribalism" to refer to competing groups or groups having different hypotheses. And do not recall it even being invoked in the creationist vs. evolution debate.
Either way, Andy has lost his (moral) compass, and quite some time ago it appears....
MapleLeaf
PS: Are you perhaps the 'starling' troll who once used to post here? Just wondering...
ML, it would be a grave mistake to take Wiley seriously. Think Denial Depot.
Hi Eli...thanks.
MapleLeaf
"And there is clear evidence for this "tribalism"--for example, how do you explain the rise of Ubuntu, answer me that please Mr Dr Smart Guy."
That was *damned* funny, dude or dudette, as the case may be!
Dear Mr Dr Professor Rabbit,
You rabbits are sometimes smarter than appears at first glance to the naked eye (faster too!), though not half so smart as Mr Dr Revkin in New York, the city.
Sincerely,
Wiley
I think Dhogaza is on to something.
"I've noticed a (relatively) new technique he's using to blunt criticism. When it's pointed out to him that his post states, in essence, that 2+2=5, he now has the habit of asking, "oh, but did you read what I wrote two years ago, stating that 2+2=4?"."
Revkin just responded to a critique in the comments of a recent post:
"Such uninformed blather... Truly. It's as if you woke up last Friday and read something of mine (or something about my work) for the first time. Maybe you should start with my piece for AARP Magazine (my largest audience ever) a few years ago..."
Dhogaza,
Not to be a stick in the mud, but while you and Mr. Wiley may have thought his his reference to Ubunto (which was trying to be too clever without knowing all the facts--although Ubuntu is a Bantu term, it traditionally does not have anything to do with tribalism) was funny, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela would probably disagree with the term/concept being used to make a poor joke; you might want to read the following and reflect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(philosophy)
Also, from the Ubuntu site:
"Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'. It also means 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. "
Hardly "tribalism" nor relevant to try and cite as evidence for 'tribalism'. Maybe those in denial about AGW or dismissive of the impacts on poor people need to try and practice or espouse Ubuntu instead of thinking only of themselves.
MapleLeaf
Gack, Maple Leaf, Ubuntu is a "tribe" of Linux believers, usually called a "distribution". Please, don't take jokes so seriously, it makes you look intemperate. And our side really can't have that sort of appearance, eh? (another tribalism joke there...)
Hi Rattus,
I'm pretty laid back actually ;) But admittedly, I guess I am a little testy after the what has transpired the last 10 months or so.
Not to nit pick, but Ubuntu is "not a tribe of believers", it is software product which has a dedicated (and growing) following. Anyhow, I now realise that my interpretation (for reasons I cannot share) was different to what Wiley was probably intending.....so thanks for clarifying.
As dhogaza can attest, he and I see eye-to-eye nine times out of ten. As for Wiley, his prose is so bizarre I am not sure whether or not he is on side [i.e., our side, the good side :)].
Have a good night.
MapleLeaf
Maple Leaf, I'm with you most of the time (like 99%). Probably misphrased my comment about Ubuntu.
Wiley, however is definitely cut from the cloth of Dr. Inferno or Baron von Monckhofen. BTW, Eli, you should add the good Baron to your HC listing. Anyone who could come up with the ICCCP should be good to go there!
Dear Mr. Dr. MapleLeaf,
I am sorry that you find my prose bizarre and that I offended you with my question regarding the rise of the Ubuntu tribe. As I said, we have few books out here on the edge of the Mogollon, other than our ACME manuals (follow name link), many of which were outsourced to China to begin with, which say things like "Make attach rocket device to parachute. WARNING DANGER!: NOT TO EXPLODE NEAR CHILDREN". Fortunately, we have been carefully studying the writings of Mr Dr Revkin, who is a PROFESSIONAL writer in New York, the city, and have learned a lot from him, and also, from Mr Dr Professor Pielke the Younger, who also says many funny things and has the ability to mean two things at once, and not infrequently zero things at once! These are pro's pros when it comes to prose, and also, they are not tribalistic like climate scientists have been proven to be in the last two weeks.
Sincerely
Wiley
Wiley, pros pros prose rocks! Made me LMAO.
Hey Wiley,
FWIW, you have made me smile too Wiley;) Anyhow, I still find your style awkward Wiley-- IMHO, the wonderful folks at FoGT have this type of prose and messaging nailed. Again, FWIW....
Rattus, thanks for the clarification. I'm not as fast on my feet as some of the deft bunnies here...
"Gack, Maple Leaf, Ubuntu is a "tribe" of Linux believers, usually called a "distribution". Please, don't take jokes so seriously, it makes you look intemperate."
The Ubuntu release is as valid a tribe as those tribes Curry, after a quick read of a couple of sociological papers infused with her contribution to confirmation of the D&K hypothesis, claim exist in science.
Got it, Mapleleaf?
"Mr Dr Professor Pielke the Younger, who also says many funny things and has the ability to mean two things at once, and not infrequently zero things at once!"
Wiley rocks, c'mon, Mapleleaf! I'd only add "and often both at the same time!"
"Anyhow, I still find your style awkward Wiley-- IMHO, the wonderful folks at FoGT have this type of prose and messaging nailed."
Well, maybe Wiley's a teetotaler, he's a coyote, after all!
Maple Leaf-
I think Curry and Revkin are doing that whole "tribes" bullshit to pay the rent.
Mike Roddy,
I'm afraid to say that you are probably correct....
MapleLeaf
Post a Comment