Who's more convincing

[capricorn]

but really, c'mon... it's no stretch to count up the tally of those wyly and I have left burnt and smoldering at the curbside!

Soooooo, you think those posters capitulated? The fact is, the majority of posters ignore you because of your arrogant and immature debating style and skills. It is your loss because any time you present a credible thought no one pays any attention to it. You're so close minded you don't even realize you've become the object of ridicule.

[madmax]

I think Riverwind did a superior job of presenting his case in a long and tenuous thread. I can't even say that I agree with him, I just feel he did a better job. It's also clear to me that this isn't Riverwinds forte but even still he was quite strong. At times some of the evidence was questionable or off, but compared to the opposing view, alot of fear over fact doesn't go very far.

I am not certain if this kind of thread should occur when there are opposing voices. I like the discussions and the passion and I don't believe that posters on MLW are auditioning for the debating club of Canada.

However, I have accepted this particular poll because in one statement a claim was made and therefore empirical evidence is required.

The vote within this thread is a good indicator of who the argument was going and I agree, that there is enough spread in the political spectrum on MLW to be fair representation.

Call it

[madmax]

No, the poll is who is more convincing. Waldo claims to have "owned" people with his arguments, I thought he was full of crap and intended to prove it. Well, the results speak for themselves.

Lets not do a poll on members discussions on any regular basis. Or we'd have Argus vs....Mr Canada etc. and I don't think this is the intent.

Or blueblood vs madmax

or....

[waldo]

That's funny because the poll as of now scores 14-3. I'd say its you guys that have been burned, and there's the proof. Where's your proof that you "burned" Riverwind?

There's enough left wing supporters on MLW to balance out the right wing ones, so I'd say MLW is a fair representative sample.

Numbers are a bitch aren't they?

buddy, your lil poll is worthless - don't you know... wyly and I are today's modern day Galileo's

the "burning" you question is most evident in the glaring Riverwind contradictions that have been highlighted in the past... blustering away that CO2 is not the problem and then, miraculously, acknowledging a CO2 problem and offering suggestion for mitigation/adaptation in the face of a previously stated non-existent problem... a self-serving reliance on IPCC position/argument while separately disparaging it left & right... mocking the climate models while using model output to attempt to make a case... selective cherry-picking... disparagement of peer-review while ignoring the many, many instances of skeptical peer-review publication... painting scientific consensus as anything but... conspiracy positions (numerous) that include the complete wide community of scientists, societies/associations/institutes/etc., scientific journals/etc., failing to provide citations when challenged, linking to Watts Up With That , enabling the MLW knuckle-draggers in failing to, himself, challenge an argument/position he knows is complete bunk... repeatedly, over and over, skirting the real issues being discussed in favour of go-to skeptical bloggers... pimping for Steve McIntyre... an unwillingness to accept the challenge for real debate (re: myata's suggested 'ground-rules')... and on and on.

why do you continue to ignore the request to actually properly frame your poll... what is the argument your poll purports to present? What are the positions of Side A versus Side B? Apparently, you have difficulty in detailing and prefer vague anonymity - go figure.

oh my... are you suggesting "this" is a left versus right issue?

[blueblood]

Lets not do a poll on members discussions on any regular basis. Or we'd have Argus vs....Mr Canada etc. and I don't think this is the intent.

Or blueblood vs madmax

or....

If people are going to say they "owned" people, they better have the grapefruits to back it up. This is the only thread I seen where someone was claiming to "own" someone else, hence why I thought a poll was appropriate.

So if Waldo claims to "own" Riverwind, somebody, can look up this poll and see his track record, and tell him he's lying.

Mr. Canada wouldn't need polls, the effects of his persuasion are already implied (written off).

Edited December 22, 2009 by blueblood

[waldo]

If people are going to say they "owned" people, they better have the grapefruits to back it up. This is the only thread I seen where someone was claiming to "own" someone else, hence why I thought a poll was appropriate.

So if Waldo claims to "own" Riverwind, somebody, can look up this poll and see his track record, and tell him he's lying.

please - get the quote right

but really, c'mon... it's no stretch to count up the tally of those wyly and I have left burnt and smoldering at the curbside!

are you working on the reply post that frames the argument for your poll and outlines the associated positional arguments of Side A versus Side B? Waiting...

[blueblood]

please - get the quote right

are you working on the reply post that frames the argument for your poll and outlines the associated positional arguments of Side A versus Side B? Waiting...

There is no way to tell who's right and who's wrong. That's like saying left wing or right wing politics is correct, there's no way to finalize that.

It's a simple poll, who is more convincing, you/wyly or riverwind.

You lost, you lost big, deal with it.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a simple poll, who is more convincing, you/wyly or riverwind.

Actually, you're right. It's not even about whether AGW is real or not - it's just about those two personalities and how they present their arguments.

[waldo]

There is no way to tell who's right and who's wrong. That's like saying left wing or right wing politics is correct, there's no way to finalize that.

It's a simple poll, who is more convincing, you/wyly or riverwind.

You lost, you lost big, deal with it.

right or wrong in what? Convincing in what? As i said, are you working on the reply post that frames the argument for your poll and outlines the associated positional arguments of Side A versus Side B?

your poll is meaningless unless you can define the argument and positional sides. Otherwise... exactly what is being polled? Like I said, when you rephrase your poll, make sure to include enough optional questions so we can clearly differentiate the true levels of skepticism and/over denial. Waiting...

[blueblood]

right or wrong in what? Convincing in what? As i said, are you working on the reply post that frames the argument for your poll and outlines the associated positional arguments of Side A versus Side B?

your poll is meaningless unless you can define the argument and positional sides. Otherwise... exactly what is being polled? Like I said, when you rephrase your poll, make sure to include enough optional questions so we can clearly differentiate the true levels of skepticism and/over denial. Waiting...

Everybody else understands what the poll is about why can't you.

15-3, it's time to brush up on those debating skills!

[blueblood]

Actually, you're right. It's not even about whether AGW is real or not - it's just about those two personalities and how they present their arguments.

Exactly, the science community is right in the middle of exploring AGW, so it would be foolish to make judgement until all the facts are recorded and scrutinized.

[waldo]

Everybody else understands what the poll is about why can't you.

15-3, it's time to brush up on those debating skills!

what was the poll about? What were the votes based on? You talk about "sides of an argument"... as I keep asking you, what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides. Why is it so difficult for you to answer those basic questions... it was... after all... your poll!

since you purport to debating prowess, myata presented a challenge to you - to all. Why didn't you... why don't you take him up on it? Or do you prefer sniping from a distance and offering nothing to actual discussions?

again... what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides... waiting

[waldo]

Exactly, the science community is right in the middle of exploring AGW, so it would be foolish to make judgement until all the facts are recorded and scrutinized.

... perhaps you should read what you're actually responding to.

again... what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides... waiting

Edited December 22, 2009 by waldo

[blueblood]

what was the poll about? What were the votes based on? You talk about "sides of an argument"... as I keep asking you, what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides. Why is it so difficult for you to answer those basic questions... it was... after all... your poll!

since you purport to debating prowess, myata presented a challenge to you - to all. Why didn't you... why don't you take him up on it? Or do you prefer sniping from a distance and offering nothing to actual discussions?

again... what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides... waiting

If you lack reading comprehension of my OP that's your problem not mine.

This thread is an actual discussion. You claim to "own" people, I call BS, I prove it, and now your crying like a 5 yr. old girl.

Cripes Michael Hardner who disagrees with me on taxes, even understands this poll. Madmax, an NDP supporter understands this poll.

Your done.

When Riverwind reads this thread he probably laughs his ass off.

Edited December 22, 2009 by blueblood

[waldo]

If you lack reading comprehension of my OP that's your problem not mine.

Your OP offers a single question, relative to an undefined argument and undefined positions of two sides of that argument? Exactly what was your poll about?

You talk about "sides of an argument"... as I keep asking you, what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides? Why is it so difficult for you to answer those basic questions... it was... after all... your poll!

again... what was/is the argument and what are the positional sides... it's your poll, after all. Why do you have difficulty in articulating your poll?

[wyly]

Actually, you're right. It's not even about whether AGW is real or not - it's just about those two personalities and how they present their arguments.

no it speaks to the poor education of the deniers and they're inability to comprehend science...most still don't know the difference between weather and climate...

it speaks to political affiliation, only the right wing sees science as political...

it speaks to the paranoid delusional who believe conspiracy theories fill their everyday lives...

it speaks to the Alberta posters whose jobs and wealth are tied to the oil sands industry..

it does not speak to the science...

it does not speak to how Waldo and myself have presented the evidence...only the inability or unwillingness of deniers to accept the evidence...

[eyeball]

The poll is missing the option; Neither.

I agree. But from the start the way the two debate has been quite different. Yes, both present cites. But Waldo and his sidekick present their cites without much thought to them. They sound like a priest presenting the holy scripture as self-evident and incontrovertible, requiring no thought. Riverwind puts much more thought and explanation into his positions and makes a lot more sense. Add in all the arrogant jeering and sneering and ridiculing coming from WW and you instinctively dislike them anyway.

The jeers from Riverwind may not be as sneering or ridiculing but his near constant pejorative use of adjectives such as communist, leftist, socialist etc etc are every bit as arrogant and detractive in his arguments. He also has enough sidekicks to provide the jeers, sneers and ridicule that were otherwise missing. I'd think if he was really diligent about trying to appear more convincing he should distance himself from this sort of base of support. That he doesn't suggests his regard for economists and their infallibility is every bit as blinded by ideology and misplaced concreteness as many who argue with him.

Actually, you're right. It's not even about whether AGW is real or not - it's just about those two personalities and how they present their arguments.

Which is strikingly similar to how elections are decided as much or more on the basis of style than substance.

Edited December 22, 2009 by eyeball

[madmax]

The poll is missing the option; Neither.

No it's not "missing", it forces one to make a decision if you wish to vote. I could have abstained based upon your comments below, but I choose the "lessor evil" and everyone knows I despise Riverwind because I prefer Helicopters and he prefers the HST. Seriously, I don't think its Riverwinds strong suit, but he took up the mantle to challenge and part of a good debate is the ability not to irritate the lurkers. In a heated debate, some of the comments in those threads would test the patience of Job.

The jeers from Riverwind may not be as sneering or ridiculing but his near constant pejorative use of adjectives such as communist, leftist, socialist etc etc are every bit as arrogant and detractive in his arguments. He also has enough sidekicks to provide the jeers, sneers and ridicule that were otherwise missing. I'd think if he was really diligent about trying to appear more convincing he should distance himself from this sort of base of support. That he doesn't suggests his regard for economists and their infallibility is every bit as blinded by ideology and misplaced concreteness as many who argue with him.

I have engaged in many debates with riverwind and he has never ever used such terminology to challenge my position. Sometimes a heated thread lowers people to the level of the participants. Wisers ones might do as Capricorn has suggested and just tune out.

Which is strikingly similar to how elections are decided as much or more on the basis of style than substance.

Correct.

[Alta4ever]

it speaks to the Alberta posters whose jobs and wealth are tied to the oil sands industry..

Keep dreaming my job is not tied to the oil patch in anyway.

[wyly]

Keep dreaming my job is not tied to the oil patch in anyway.

everyone's job in alberta is tied to the oil patch, directly or indirectly...shut down the largest industry in the province and the province becomes a rural backwater, the financial repercussions will hit everyone to some degree...

[Alta4ever]

everyone's job in alberta is tied to the oil patch, directly or indirectly...shut down the largest industry in the province and the province becomes a rural backwater, the financial repercussions will hit everyone to some degree...

Sorry but my job pans Western Canada. Has to hit at least three western provinces hard before I am out of work.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Keepitsimple]

I'll be darned. I know Waldo and Wyly voted for themselves.....but who on earth (aha! that might be the answer) cast the third vote?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[madmax]

Cripes Michael Hardner who disagrees with me on taxes, even understands this poll. Madmax, an NDP supporter understands this poll.

When Riverwind reads this thread he probably laughs his ass off.

[Alta4ever]

.

[Alta4ever]

Seems to be time to bring this forward again