Having discussed a few topics with Entropic Man and Chandra over the last few months all I can say is I don't read anything Chandra posts or any of the replies.

I am quite happy to discuss things with Entropic Man, although he sometimes moves on to a new thread leaving the discussion with me hanging in mid-air. I put that down to the multiple discussions he has going on in parallel. Entropic Man seems quite civilised and polite if treated in the same way. He'll even agree that valid points have been made during a discussion, although I doubt that he'll ever change his mind on Climate Change, but he probably thinks I'll never change my mind..

So far I've missed anything from Replicant.

Entropic Man feel free to correct my impressions.

Dung,

> The main thing that annoys me about him and the others is
the way they disrupt discussions that Bishop Hill regulars
wish to have with other BH regulars

Please take a look at the Nazi thread and tell me exactly how I 'disrupted' the discussion. My first response was bang on-topic and subsequent posts addressed what others had to say about what I had said.

> To answer Chandra's request I am more than happy to
discuss climate change with him for as long as he is
reasonable and honest.

I'm glad to hear it and I will reciprocate. If you think I have been dishonest in the past, please identify clearly where and I will apologize appropriately. Ditto where I have been unreasonable (but don't forget to quote the context).

SansyS, I'm sorry to have upset you. I do not recall how and I certainly bear no ill will towards you.

Sandy S, Martin A

Sounds about right. I do tend to get involved in too many threads at once and lose track! Now I have the technology to use Discussions this might get easier.

Should I be here? I find debating with different viewpoints clarifies my thinking. Some here would probably prefer me to go away and stop my heresy.

I never quite know what level to aim for. There are people here with advanced technical education and some with none at all. Mostly I try to keep it as non-technical as possible. Old habit?

Entropic man
A heretic amongst heretics that made me smile.

Entropic Man is OK, I've said that before. He's clearly technically literate, and some of his stuff is right.

Chandra's content free and parrots SkS. He's also racist. So now I don't have anything to do with him.

Short answer: Yes.

"... or one and which of them?" as one would frame it in an interrogatory. Entropic Man, definitely. The arguments need to be tested. Audi alteram partem.

Dung, you still haven't told me where I've been dishonest or unreasonable (quoting context). I'm interested to know...

"Climate Change

So far I've missed anything from Replicant."

Perhaps I can clear up some of your perplexity. The fact is that with most of the people here it is not really possible to discuss anything since there is no understanding of common ground. For instance the complete denial of the existence of almost everything that everybody can see for themselves like chemtrails and fracking hell, (just to name two of the most obvious). Where is discussion supposed to begin when people refuse to acknowledge things which are in front of their eyes. It is a known fact that denial runs deep in humans. Then there is the added issue of separating the people who genuinely don`t know from the shills who have an interest in maintaining the deception. So you can see that before a discussion can take place an understanding of where anyone might position themselves is key. You can`t really have a discussion when huge and powerful forces (government, wall street and commercial banks, military, military industrial complex) are inherently positioned to promote their agenda and your opponent simply waves such notions away with preposterous and childish statements. So naturally genuine discussions are rare.

Of course not. You've changed the original position to a 'fake' position by thinking that the military is separate from the government. By thinking international money, wall street business and media is somehow separate from all this. We can just strike them out and show it back to him and pretend to create a discussion about 'another' position. Ludicrous.

The fact that you position your question about chemtrails as if there was a question about them says everything. Ludicrous.

I don't mean you personally. I mean the argument. As much as that distinction may mean to you. I wouldn't be able to tell how you can't have not seen chemtrails. I know lots of people on the streets haven't seen them. It's mystery. If you haven't seen them, there's no discussion. There's no discussion about confusing them with contrails. What would be more interesting to me would be why you say you can't see them. What do you hope to gain?

replicant: "fracking hell" ?

What's that?

What's it sound like you think it is?

I didn't say I *can't* see them. But to the best of my knowledge I never *have* seen them. I have never consciously heard of chemtrails.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, that was mostly a typo, force of habit. But if you haven't seen them, then you can't see them, because that is pretty much all there is in the sky. Nothing of what you see are vapour trails and only portions are genuine clouds. But of course you do have to look up and you do have to reflect.