[LINK] OFFLIST RE: Climate Change, The other point of View

Frank O'Connor francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com
Tue Jun 21 18:30:23 AEST 2011


At 2:41 PM +1000 on 21/6/11 you wrote:
>Thank-you Frank for that detailed litany of my faults, transgressions
>and obvious shortcommings.
>
>I'll give you every point except the claim that I felt that my argument
>for Nuclear was only successful because I claimed that my rights had
>somehow been compromised.

The whole thing closed down because of the unpleasantness you 
generated, Tom ... not because of the power of your arguments. You 
chose to nail a moderator, and to their discredit everyone on the 
List went along with it (I include myself in that 'discredit list')

And your contention that the Japanese had nothing to worry about with 
Fukushima and the earthquakes ... that should be quoted back at you 
every time you exercise your opinion on this List, but I'm not gonna 
bother doing it.     :)

>
>>  contention that your rights were being compromised.
>
>I would appreciate your pointing out to me where exactly I claimed that
>my rights had been compromised ?
>
>Further I would say to you the same I suggested to Mr. Taylor...
>
>Did you actually read my comments at the end of the so called "Volcano
>revelation" ?


Mmmm ... magnificently subtle, intent obscured by confused with 
ambiguity and vacuity. You could have been for, or against, or 
in-between ... and still could be for all we know.     :)

But go ahead with your protestations. ("Yon Cassius, methinks he doth 
protest too much.")

>
>>  >Of course whilst his simplified analysis is patently accurate, the
>>  >author doesn't concern himself with rampant on-going
>>  pulmonary disease
>>  >issues (caused by cumulative effects, not one offs like a volcano
>>  >eruption)
>
>
>And didn't the terminology used "his simplified analysis is patently
>accurate" seem just a tad sarcastic to you ?
>
>Possibly, my writing style needs to be upgraded to "in your face" rather
>then subtle witticism.
>
>But once again, thank-you for pointing out my deficiencies.
>

I'm happy you appreciated it.

At 3:15 PM +1000 21/6/11, Tom Koltai apologised with:
>Sorry Frank the "reply all" technology caught me out yet again.


Not a problem, Tom.

Oh ... Oh ... how unfortunate. I made the same mistake.      :)

I'm ever so sorry ...

				Regards,



More information about the Link mailing list