> From: Paul Bart <pb2...@gmail.com>
> Anonymity.
> >
> > MikeB ignores the perfectly good reasons for anonymity stated in my
> > previous post
> >
> > I participate in many forums that allow anonymity, and do not see the
> > problems you atributre to anonymous postings.
> >
> > Just because you say iot does not make it true Mike.
> >
>
> Well generally he never just "say it", the majority of his posts are well
> researched and well argued. On the other hand your posts are neither, but I
> have noted a strong tendency on your part to categorise people if they do
> not agree with your view; "flat earthers" comes to mind. In my opinion it
> is difficult to advance any argument by simply throwing labels and slogans
> about..
My view and that of the vast bulk of experts Paul. If it quacks like a duck, it
is a duck, no matter how you try to dissemble. I view those who deny the
generally held view of the vast majority of scientific experts as flat
earthers. In fact that could well be the definition of flat earthers.
I find it most amusing that you use the argument of labels and slogans when
that is the stock in trade of climate change deniers.
I have noticed an amusing tendency on your part to defend the indefensible.
> research, research and far more thought. He isn't always the most
> social animal and yes my post here can easily be construed as biased
> because he has been a friend of mine for more than forty years, BUT
> the one thing that you can NEVER take away from Mike is his research
> research and thought, based on Democratic, Free of dogma, free of
> precedent, free of the fear of criticism, thinking processes. Often
> the truth hurts and is often unpalatable as well but that is what i
> think Mike is always after.
Whilst I disagree often with Mike there are many areas that we do agree on,
though I would describe Mike views on CC as fruit loop. Despite your claim
Libertarian dogma is often present in Mikes posts.
I have always enjoyed the vigorous debates with Mike, and have subsequently
spoken by phone with him on a number of occasions and found him incredibly
friendly, knowledgeable and helpful in his area of expertise, despite the
"robust" nature of some of our previous discussions.
> >> Anonymity.
> >>
> >> MikeB? ignores the perfectly good reasons for anonymity stated in my
> >> previous post
> >>
> >> ?I participate in many forums that allow anonymity, and do not see the
> >> problems you atributre to anonymous postings.
> >>
> >> Just because you say iot does not make it true Mike.
> >
> > Well generally he never just "say it", the majority of his posts are well
> > researched and well argued.? On the other hand your posts are neither, but I
> > have noted a strong tendency on your part to categorise people if they do
> > not agree with your view; "flat earthers" comes to mind.? In my opinion it
> > is difficult to advance any argument by simply throwing labels and slogans
> > about..
> >>
> >> At no point did you address the issue of those who would not be able to
> >> state their views if not anonymous.
> >>
> >> True freedom of speech sometimes requires anonymity Mike, whether you like
> >> it or not.
> >
> > Well true freedom of speech never requires anonymity, that is why it is
> > called "freedom of speech". I have spent first 18 years of my life living in
> > a country with a communist regime, so I do know just a bit about the lack of
> > "freedom of speech".? Not sure what argument you would advance to suggest
> > that there would be any problem exercising your "freedom of speech" on this
> > list.? Well apart from a fear of posting something stupid I guess.
Given your "supposed" expertise Paul I am surprised you are not aware that
anonymity is generally a method where people who for various reasons may not be
able to speak freely without some form of recourse. It was and is extensively
used by people from countries with the sort of repressive regime you describe,
such as China currently. Interesting you are not aware of that. I suggest you
look at the link below.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/08/AR2009040803248.html
As Oscar Wilde wrote , “Man is least in himself
when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you
the truth.”
> >> Matt please do not leave the group because of the ranting of someone who
> >> has little support for the unpleasant
> >> attack he has made on you in recent posts. Mike does not speak for the
> >> whole group, in fact I doubt many support his view at all.
> >
> > And how do you know what the level of support for Mike's, or anyone else for
> > that matter, is? It is well documented that only a small portion of people
> > that are members post.? So I am interested in how can you make such an
> > assertion.? And lets not hide behind the statement "I doubt", the intent of
> > your post is quite clear.
I doubt Paul, because I get off list messages of support form those who do not
want to be "bullied" to quote one
off list respondant. If you wish to support such actions it reflects more on
you than me. It is notable that none have expresed support of Mikes view
including yourself. If you do support his view why not say so, rather than
shoot the messenger.
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 8:19:37 +1100
> From: <opsw...@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: [Aus-soaring] BOM Historical Data.i
> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
> <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
> Cc: Ron Sanders <resand...@gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <6094525.1258579177810.javamail.r...@nskntwebs01p>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> > >>
> > >> Matt please do not leave the group because of the ranting of someone who
> > >> has little support for the unpleasant
> > >> attack he has made on you in recent posts. Mike does not speak for the
> > >> whole group, in fact I doubt many support his view at all.
> > >
> > > And how do you know what the level of support for Mike's, or anyone else
> > > for
> > > that matter, is? It is well documented that only a small portion of people
> > > that are members post.? So I am interested in how can you make such an
> > > assertion.? And lets not hide behind the statement "I doubt", the intent
> > > of
> > > your post is quite clear.
I was refering only to the issue of anonymity, and I dont see the extensive
research you mention quoted in any of the related posts, grasping at straws
much? I am not hiding behind anything.
I do doubt, you are welcome to prove me wrong, by for example expressing
support for Mikes view which I note you do not do anywhere in your reply.
Regards
Dave L
_________________________________________________________________
Want to know what your boss is paid? Check out The Great Australian Pay Check
now
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
