STEWGREEN. ARE YOU JUST A SLOW LEARNER?

-5 across the board.

I wish to amend my 7.36 statement. Rereading the early pages of this thread I now recognize my point 2 is inaccurate. I wish to replace it with

2) From the outset I realised I would not get a reasonable discussion and initially refused to contribute. I was, however, repeatedly drawn into the fray by misrepresentations of what I had written elsewhere or by deliberate provocations like that of Salopman (= saladman). NOT troll behaviour.

Note that in my first statement I was misremembering better treatment from you. That didn't happen.

Martin A.

Be reassured its not passive. It's 100 per cent, grade A pure aggressive.

Alan, aTTP also keeps telling BH readers/commenters similar things along the lines of "I don't know why I bother with you lot". But he too just keeps coming back for more.

Mike.

True, but I don't think you appreciate just how pisxxd off I am with you all, or if you are aware, you just don't care a fig.

My shade will indeed continue to haunt you here with my new "device". Now that is a threat. No passiveness at all.

Mike. So you categorize me in the same camp as aTTP? Good to know.

Alan Kendall,
If it's any consolation I don't think your robust defense of the BBC in this thread could be considered trolling. I'm not sure that your "device" helped but each to his own as it is with the output from the BBC.

Elsewhere you get positive responses from regulars here and engage in civil conversations hardly symptomatic of trolling.

Indeed SandyS I have tried as much as possible to keep operating as normal elsewhere. The device does appear to have been effective here and I wish to retire it ASAP

But it won't stop us saying the BBC should go, no matter how often you deploy your childish scoring system.

SandyS. Just returned from dog walking during which I realized that my response to you should have been more generous. It was so much more than just a consolation. I very much appreciate it.

Tiny,

learned nothing yet? On another thread a brick wall was mentioned. Take the advice offered then and there.

Creeping up there:
Logic index -6
Empathy. needs a transplant.

Can play this silly game forever.

So AK is that rare subspecie of troll, the self-righteous angry troll.

How self congratulating some of you are, such self belief. Makes me want to doff mi cap and pull forelock. How could I ever reach your lofty heights. Leave you to your well thought out thoughts. Will gaze upon your lofty works with suitable awe.

I never opposed you expressing your views on the BBC, I am infuriated by your mistreatment of mine. Something that I know you vehemently dispute. Note however that you keep on coming at me. If you force me to be a troll, I'll get as much enjoyment from it as I can. Again you choose - an ally or a vengeful enemy.

I think it's time you left Alan before you damage your health.

hunter
Seeing as this Discussion thread was started by Stewgreen and Alan Kendall, who has posted perfectly normal "Bishop Hill" contributor comments elsewhere, was in the most partresponding to comments made by others then I'm afraid I disagree with your comment of Apr 23, 2016 at 2:10 PM and in particular the accusation of trolling. Although comments like that may well colour the attitude of others to perfectly reasonable comments made in the future.

Lurker. What a simply perfect name for you, and for you to be so concerned with my wellbeing. Its touching.

Remind your mother its time for mouth washing.

So that's one definite vote for me to leave.

Stewgreen, correction. I don't believe the BBC is unbiased, have never believed that, and have repeated stated this. I don't, on he other hand, support the nuclear option favoured by some here, to eviscerate the BBC or to call for its destruction . I value much of the BBC output. You don't, fine. We disagree, but why ob why do you just keep on attacking me?

Again my views are being distorted. What evidence do you have that I am defending the BBC against bias? Put up or shut up Stewgreen.

If you look far back you will discover that this thread originated from a discussion in unthreaded about The Big Question and Nicky Campbell. Read again what I said then, views that I still adhere to and which I surmise are nearly identical to your own.

That's why my name is Lurker.

My long dead mother never needed to give me a mouth wash, though I think you need to think about your own, mouth that is, not your mother.

My vote would be for you to leave but then I can't speak for others. You throw yourself into the lions den and when the lions start to eat you seem surprised. Maybe you think you are too important to be treated this way.

So from me Alan, it's goodbye. But if you really want to stick around get rid of the prima donna attitude.

Stewgreen 2.36pm today.

"I am interested in his alternative view of BBC bias...."

Your turn, when did I ever suggest I had an alternative view about BBC bias?

I tried to understand it, suggesting in the past that the BBC now may not believe it needs to be neutral about alternatives to AGW. But trying to understand never equates to my sympathy for them in this matter. I have often recommended here that BHers try to put yourselves into the shoes of opponents, better to understand them and, if possible, attack them or bend them to our will.

My alternative view has always concerned how the BBC should be dealt with. I favour criticism, reform (if possible) rather than downright destruction.

If someone at BH could tell me what to do, I'll switch on whatever gubbins I need to. Supplied my email address and have been contacted by Josh in the past. I thought anyone could get my email from BH.

Lurker your mouth grows ever more foul. I'm pleased not to have made your acquaintance before. Troll I brand you.

Do you work for a pro AGW organization by any chance? Does that control your voting?

Mike. So you categorize me in the same camp as aTTP? Good to know.

Apr 23, 2016 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan, I'll elaborate.

When you (one) posts something and get replies from, say, five people who disagree with you, I think it often doesn't turn out well when you start trying to answer five people with one reply.

It may seem more efficient when you don't have time to reply individually, but those five people are unlikely to all think they have said the same thing. So your reply runs a high risk of producing further disagreement.... which is a recipe for less courteous exchanges. Individuals like Stewgreen are amongst the least antagonistic at Bishop Hill, in my opinion. To witness you getting into increasingly pointless exchanges with people who I believe are not ill-willed towards you suggests that there may be a more serious breakdown in communication.

People like aTTP and Raff, may suffer from the same issue, but their disagreement with people on this blog run far deeper.

Alan, what planet are you from?

To use your phrase; I can keep this up all day. Troll worries me nought. I have lived with prima donna's all my working life. Your abuse is simply water of a ducks back.