EV drawbacks

Fast Eddie said:
As written in post #817:
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie said:
Or, in plain speak: if temps have already risen by the amounts we have been told, then why have we not seen the correlating increases in wildfire damage and instead we have seen reductions ? You simply can‘t argue it both ways mate !
Click to expand...


Yet Mr. Spenser continues to do so.
I made note earlier regarding the influences of logic and accountability vs. fanaticism, self serving reasoning, emotion based analysis, cherry picking facts, on and on and on.
For some, especially extremist advocates, pro or con, left or right, the objective within a discussion is not to arrive at a correct or mutual point of understanding or consideration, its about the recognition of being correct, irregardless of what reality demonstrates and the facts dictate.
 
Last edited:
Lineslinger said:
Yet Mr. Spenser continues to do so.
I made note earlier regarding the influences of logic and accountability vs. ‘fanaticism’, self serving reasoning, emotion based analysis, ‘cherry picking facts’, on and on and on.
For some, especially ‘extremist advocates!!!!!, pro or con, left or right, the objective within a discussion is not to arrive at a ‘correct or mutual point of understanding’ or consideration, its about the recognition of being correct, irregardless of ‘what reality demonstrates and the ‘facts’ dictate!!!!!.’….….🤣 ……..🙂 …..🙃 .…..:oops: !
Click to expand...
EV drawbacks
 
Stephen, your arguments have gradually reduced to use of emojis, posting clips, and copy pasting highlighted texts that have little or no bearing on the conversation, and have little or no explanation behind them.

And now to copy pasting and highlighting texts as insults.

For a serial copy paster to actually attack someone who is using words to formulate an argument by accusing them of trying to look intelligent is rich !

If you are unable to formulate and articulate a reasonable argument, it is surely time to concede.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
Stephen, your arguments have gradually reduced to use of emojis, posting clips, and copy pasting highlighted texts that have little or no bearing on the conversation, and have little or no explanation behind them.

And now to copy pasting and highlighting texts as insults.

For a serial copy paster to actually attack someone who is using words to formulate an argument by accusing them of trying to look intelligent is rich !

If you are unable to formulate and articulate a reasonable argument, it is surely time to concede.
Click to expand...
Those are disingenuous and misrepresentative comments FE. You forget recent history.

My approach is so because I still want to put forward an alternate POV. But, as you well know, there is no place for anybody in this discussion that does’nt follow the party line - just how many examples of that would you like me to post?

Not sure it even registers that certain amongst you move as a tag-team (or pack), until any interloper is excluded. Ridicule, derision and abuse do not pass as pub banter - nor ‘harden up princess’ as a salve. Do you not wonder why there is literally NO competing opinions on some of the most important subjects of our lifetime? Take a wild guess.

That shit was ‘water off a ducks back’ to me, but your approach was not. Despite being someone who’s opinion I respected, you went out of your way to mis-characterise/interpret/represent what I had to say at every opportunity.

It was the below thread that was ‘the straw’ when a decent debate (with accompanying bullshit) stopped being enjoyable or wortwhile. No big deal in of itself, but it showed that you were just ‘playing the man and not the ball’. What the f$@k is the point of that!

www.accessnorton.com

Strandbeest Are Evolving

www.accessnorton.com www.accessnorton.com
(A simple thumbs up at the end, when it turned out that these creations were actually being referred to as I had coincidentally done, might have been appropriate).

So, I’m gonna continue commenting however I like, whenever I like, without too much concern for group sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
Those are disingenuous and misrepresentative comments FE. You forget recent history.

My approach is so because I still want to put forward an alternate POV. But, as you well know, there is no place for anybody in this discussion that does’nt follow the party line - just how many examples of that would you like me to post?

Not sure it even registers that certain amongst you move as a tag-team (or pack), until any interloper is excluded. Ridicule, derision and abuse do not pass as pub banter - nor ‘harden up princess’ as a salve. Do you not wonder why there is literally NO competing opinions on some of the most important subjects of our lifetime? Take a wild guess.

That shit was ‘water off a ducks back’ to me, but your approach was not. Despite being someone who’s opinion I respected, you went out of your way to miss-characterise/interpret what I had to say at every opportunity.

It was the below thread that was ‘the straw’ when a decent debate (with accompanying bullshit) stopped being enjoyable or wortwhile. No big deal in of itself, but it showed that you were just ‘playing the man and not the ball’. What the f$@k is the point of that!

www.accessnorton.com

Strandbeest Are Evolving

www.accessnorton.com www.accessnorton.com
(A simple thumbs up at the end, when it turned out that these creations were actually being referred to as I had coincidentally done, might have been appropriate).

So, I’m gonna continue commenting however I like, whenever I like, without too much concern for group sensibilities.
Click to expand...
I am not intentionally miss characterising you at all. I am only responding to your written word. If you feel I am miss characterising you at any point then please call it out there and then.

I personally think you should keep commenting. But I just wish you would actually comment, and debate, and counter points that you disagree with with logic and counter arguments more, and copy paste stuff less.

Express yourself and your point of view, with logic.

We’re certainly not going to agree all of the time, but that’s not what debate is for.

Onto your next point, I fail to see the logic behind bringing in an irrelevant 3 month old conversation! But, seeing as you mentioned it, and continuing my point about logic, here is what happened there:

You called it perpetual motion, which it is clearly not because A) perpetual motion is impossible and B) they are wind powered.

I mentioned this in the original post quite light heartedly. But instead of saying ‘yeah, fair point FE’ you proceeded to argue the point, even though A) perpetual motion is impossible and B) those are wind powered.

And then, 3 months later, you have the audacity to bring it up and criticise me for not liking your incorrect line of argument!

Ok, if it makes you happy, 👍 to our point that the impossible is indeed possible and those wonderfully clever wind powered devices are not in fact wind powered but are in fact powered by magical impossible energy sources.

And YOU wonder why people argue with you !?!?

FFS.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
I am not intentionally miss characterising you at all. I am only responding to your written word. If you feel I am miss characterising you at any point then please call it out there and then.

I personally think you should keep commenting. But I just wish you would actually comment, and debate, and counter points that you disagree with with logic and counter arguments more, and copy paste stuff less.

Express yourself and your point of view, with logic.

We’re certainly not going to agree all of the time, but that’s not what debate is for.

Onto your next point, I fail to see the logic behind bringing in an irrelevant 3 month old conversation! But, seeing as you mentioned it, and continuing my point about logic, here is what happened there:

You called it perpetual motion, which it is clearly not because A) perpetual motion is impossible and B) they are wind powered.

I mentioned this in the original post quite light heartedly. But instead of saying ‘yeah, fair point FE’ you proceeded to argue the point, even though A) perpetual motion is impossible and B) those are wind powered.

And then, 3 months later, you have the audacity to bring it up and criticise me for not liking your incorrect line of argument!

Ok, if it makes you happy, 👍 to our point that the impossible is indeed possible and those wonderfully clever wind powered devices are not in fact wind powered but are in fact powered by magical impossible energy sources.

And YOU wonder why people argue with you !?!?

FFS.
Click to expand...
Wow, a whole series of your very own brand of purposeful misrepresentation; it was never about the literal meaning of perpetual motion and you now that.

Might sleep on whether that is even worth responding to.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Wow, a whole series of your very own brand of purposeful misrepresentation; it was never about the literal meaning of perpetual motion and you now that.

Might sleep on whether that is even worth responding to.
Click to expand...
Stephen that is ALL it was about. Or more pertinently, it was about your arguing of the point.

So let me ask you, why did you keep arguing the point?

Did you think I was wrong?

These are genuine questions by the way, because you are trying to make me out as the villain here, when all I did was point out an irrefutable fact, and in a light hearted and none confrontational manner. It only became an argument because you continued to argue against it.

And to bring it up again 3 months later !

Honestly, I just do not understand why ??
 
When I think about these back and forths I am always aware that we fall in so easily with our tribal notions and
work hard at our confirmation bias. So tough to figure out just what really is right and wrong. After the last three
years it is literally impossible to believe any expert or body of same, surely not any political outfit. And this is because
the data is all baloney. If you read around you can see that there is a large increase in fake scientific papers partly due to the need to get government funding and partly because of the need to 'publish or perish' in academia. PhD's
have long since lost their luster because there are too many and too many in some questionable field.
So how on earth do you make a good decision on anything? I have to say you cannot!
 
You can still research and find solid sources of scientifically sound/fact based information.
But you have to look deeper, work harder and qualify it beyond reasonable expectations.

Or you can surf the social media platforms, plagiarize someone else's factual creations and state it as being honest.
Or you can paste up someone else's opinionated claims, claim it as true to reinforce your biased insights on said subject.
Or you can continue shouting your internet learnings to any audience you can discover while you incessantly question any/every contrary opinion, fact or offering.
Or, you could just go sit on the curb and beat your dick with a brick, which would be just as productive.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
Stephen that is ALL it was about. Or more pertinently, it was about your arguing of the point.

So let me ask you, why did you keep arguing the point?

Did you think I was wrong?

These are genuine questions by the way, because you are trying to make me out as the villain here, when all I did was point out an irrefutable fact, and in a light hearted and none confrontational manner. It only became an argument because you continued to argue against it.

And to bring it up again 3 months later !

Honestly, I just do not understand why ??
Click to expand...
I brought that thread up as an example of your continued mischaracterisation of what I had to say, without using one from a more weighty subject and because it stuck in my mind. Abuse/ridicule from others is inconsequential (although tiresome) however, having your considered views and opinions repeatedly distorted just kills meaningful debate. I’ve pointed this out to you on multiple ocassions as you know.

The thread on the Strandbeest came up and I was interested - also, the chance to contribute on a less combative subject. I remarked on what it may be called as an art form and offered “Perpetual Performance Art” as a suggestion, because it was an artistic, rhythmic performance based device that‘s movement ‘seemed repeated and endless’. ‘Perpetual’ used correctly as an adjective. As an informal musing on its type of movement and what we might call such performance art - a descriptor in the context of my own writings. Not seeking to use ‘Perpetual Motion’ in a technical context as a scientifically/grammatically accurate description of the attempted mode or means of propulsion of a device.

IMG_8456.jpeg


It was me that tried to keep it ‘light hearted and non-confrontational’ as you characterise yourself, by quipping about ‘per-petrol’ and throwing in some emojies! Your attempts to force your point and become argumentative are there to read. As are my attempts to explain my use of the word. We’d already been debating elsewhere - it seemed plain you saw capital to be made.

Within a few posts my light hearted musing over what we may call the machine as an art form ended up here:

IMG_8459.jpeg

I especially like the bit where you attempt to discredit me and invalidate my (predominantly mainstream) views on climate. Who took us there, you or me?

Was I ‘arguing the point’ or trying to explain my use of the word?
Were you ‘light hearted and non-confrontational’?
Did it become an argument because of me?
Did I not mention your mischaracterisations on multiple occasions?
You don’t know why I use articles and cut and paste commentary?
Do I think that wind energy is perpetual?
Am I ‘blindly accepting’ of Greens policies?
Did I call it a ‘Perpetual Motion’ machine? …….etc, etc

Are these accurate or might these be misrepresentative in any way?

I didn't use the word incorrectly because I don’t understand what perpetual motion means. Nor does this invalidate my beliefs on the environment. Can’t say the same for these guys - you’d have to ask them!

IMG_8462.jpeg

IMG_8464.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I do not understand your point(s) above at all.

Allow me to separate the issues as I see them:

1. The perpetual motion debate:

Stephen you are actually backing me up. You are posting links whereby someone else also uses the term perpetual motion incorrectly, as though it is some kind of proof!

Let’s go back to the beginning... you described the Stranbeest’s as having perpetual motion. And I said this:

”Perpetual ?

Its wind powered”.


Thats ALL I said.

It’s factually correct. It’s mild mannered. It’s not having a go at you at all.

But you argued against it, and against everything I posted in trying to point out the basic fact. You just dug a freakin hole!

3 months later you are still arguing about it. Or at least you are arguing around it with lots of emotionally based content.

So, I really don’t know what the point is that you’re trying to make.

But here’s mine:

I simply corrected an incorrect comment. In a none confrontational and mild mannered way.

I was 100% inarguably correct.

But we are still discussing it 3 months later.

For reasons I cannot explain, you seem to believe that I should back down and stop defending the laws of physics and ‘splitting hairs’ and you get very emotional when I do not comply.

Instead of being told ‘yeah you were right FE, this is a daft storm in a teacup, let’s move on’. I am instead accused of playing the man not the ball, miss characterising you, playing tag team to gang up on you, etc, etc.

Stephen let me be as clear as I know how: NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.


2. My comment about your green views:

My point about linking the perpetual motion argument with your green views is this: in the perpetual motion argument you have demonstrated that you have an ability to ignore plain facts and attempt to beat them into submission with emotional content. I am suggesting that you may carry the same logic over to other topics and debates. I may well be totally incorrect, I do not know you from Adam, this is only a personal observation based on your written words.


3. Being ‘tag teamed’

Regarding this particular EV thread, the reason that you feel out numbered and ’tag teamed’ here is very simple... It’s a thread that was created to have a whinge against the popular opinion, to point out inconsistencies, to basically question if ‘the Emperors new clothes’ are indeed as fabulous as we’ve all been told. YOU come to this thread with the opposite viewpoint, WHICH IS FINE, but you cannot do that, and argue against the group, and not expect them to argue back !

This is a virtual pub… you have walked up to a virtual table in the corner… pushed into a virtual conversation mid flow… disagreed with everyone there… and then gotten upset about it.

THAT IS NOT MY DOING.


Footnote:
Stephen, I don’t know how far you want to keep going with this? From my perspective it’s clear that we are people who simply approach things from rather different perspectives.

I’m also of the belief that that is healthy in society when it’s recognised and handled properly.

Which means both sides knowing when they’ve said their pieces and reached a point at agreeing to disagree. And then moving on respecting and accepting this.

Which is exactly what I’d recommend we do now.
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
I didn't use the word incorrectly because I don’t understand what perpetual motion means. Nor does this invalidate my beliefs on the environment. Can’t say the same for these guys - you’d have to ask them!
Click to expand...

Here’s a quick response to your summary:

didn't use the word incorrectly because I don’t understand what perpetual motion means.
Click to expand...
Fair enough mate. Then why didn’t you just say that ?

Nor does this invalidate my beliefs on the environment.
Click to expand...
Of course it doesn’t. The issue I had was your persistence in arguing a point in the face of such facts.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Honestly, I do not understand your point(s) above at all.

Stephen you are actually backing my up. There you go again posting a link whereby someone else also uses the term perpetual motion incorrectly, as though it is some kind of proof!

Let’s go back to the beginning... you described the Stranbeest’s as having perpetual motion. And I said this:

”Perpetual ?

Its wind powered”.


Thats ALL I said.

It’s factually correct. It’s mild mannered. It’s not having a go at you at all.

But you argued against it, and against everything I posted in trying to point out the basic fact. You just dug a freakin hole!

3 months later you are still arguing about it. Or at least you are arguing around it with lots of emotionally based content.

So, I really don’t know what the point is that you’re trying to make.

But here’s mine:

I simply corrected an incorrect comment. In a none confrontational and mild mannered way.

I was 100% inarguably correct.

But we are still discussing it 3 months later.

For reasons I cannot explain, you seem to believe that I should back down and stop defending the laws of physics and ‘splitting hairs’ and you get very emotional when I do not comply.

Instead of being told ‘yeah you were right FE, this is a daft storm in a teacup, let’s move on’. I am instead accused of playing the man not the ball, miss characterising you, playing tag team to gang up on you, etc, etc.

Stephen let me be as clear as I know how: NONE OF THAT IS TRUE.

My point about linking the perpetual motion argument with your green views is this: in the perpetual motion argument you have demonstrated that you have an ability to ignore plain facts and attempt to beat them into submission with emotional content. I am suggesting that you may carry the same logic over to other topics and debates.

But regarding this particular EV thread, the reason that you feel out numbered and ’tag teamed’ here is very simple... It’s a thread that was created to have a whinge against the popular opinion, to point out inconsistencies, to basically question if ‘the Emperors new clothes’ are indeed as fabulous as we’ve all been told. YOU come to this thread with the opposite viewpoint, WHICH IS FINE, but you cannot do that, and argue against the group, and not expect them to argue back !

This is a virtual pub… you have walked up to a virtual table in the corner and pushed into a virtual conversation mid flow and disagreed with everyone there… and then gotten upset about it.

THAT IS NOT MY DOING.
Click to expand...
Emotional, upset etc? Incorrect. My email was explanatory. We’ll just add that to the misrepresentation list shall we?

………you described the Stranbeest’s as having perpetual motion.
Click to expand...

No, I did not. But we both know that don’t we.

……….,didn’t use the word incorrectly because I don’t understand what perpetual motion means.

Purposeful mischaracterisation of the meaning of my (poorly worded) sentence - you know that so, indicative of your usual approach of course😆. Is this were you say that you were just joking all along FE?

An apt display of why there is little point in engaging you in meaningful conversation - unless in agreement with your views and opinions of course.

Enough time wasted.

Have a great day.
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
Emotional, upset etc? Incorrect. My email was explanatory. We’ll just add that to the misrepresentation list shall we?



No, I did not. But we both know that don’t we.

……….,didn’t use the word incorrectly because I don’t understand what perpetual motion means.

Purposeful mischaracterisation of the meaning of my (poorly worded) sentence - you know that so, indicative of your usual approach of course😆. Is this were you say that you were just joking all along FE?

An apt display of why there is little point in engaging you in meaningful conversation - unless in agreement with your views and opinions of course.

Enough time wasted.

Have a great day.
Click to expand...
No I was not joking. I was responding VERY GENUINELY to your written word.

Thats what you wrote Stephen. I thought its what you meant. It really is that simple!

If that’s the case, then you did indeed write badly there, you actually wrote very clearly, just made the wrong point.

And then you blame me for miss characterising you…

Stephen, YOU are the one casting aspersions here, incorrectly…
 
Wildfire Prompts Mandatory Evacuation of Entire Southwestern Louisiana Town – State Officials Say It’s the Largest in State’s History

Wildfire is the word selected and pushed to disguise arson attacks perpetrated by the global world order. It’s all part of the plan. You’ll own nothing and be happy if you survive their treachery.....
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...evacuation-entire-southwestern-louisiana-town
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie said:
No I was not joking. I was responding VERY GENUINELY to your written word.

Thats what you wrote Stephen. I thought its what you meant. It really is that simple!

If that’s the case, then you did indeed write badly there, you actually wrote very clearly, just made the wrong point.

And then you blame me for miss characterising you…

Stephen, YOU are the one casting aspersions here, incorrectly…
Click to expand...
Not something I would say lightly FE, but you lack the most important of qualities - integrity. You have demonstrated that on multiple occasions.

Your problem, not mine.
 
Back
Top