🚀 go-pugleaf

  Yep,  Greig Ebeling wrote on Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:03:52 GMT about:
Re: Ebeling just a troll -- was: Re: Bashford says: Ozone confuses me.


>This post fails to add anything of value to this discussion, and is
>not worthy of sci.environment, or any other ng which is not dedicated
>to pointless abuse.

In fact science:
1) teaches one to test one's assumptions,
2) teaches one to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis,
3) teaches one to test those via facts, observation and logic.

I prefer logic.

This is what this post is about.  You seemingly object to my
number 1, testing your assumptions.  My falsifiable hypothesis
is that you are operating under dogma, and that you are merely
a general purpose anti-environmental dittohead parrot.  This
hypothesis has seemingly been confirmed by your behaviour as
per my predictions.  

And you fell flat again in my attempt to discern what your 2)
and 3) are.  No wonder you object, you have been defeated.
Objection in this case is not scientific, but a symptom of dogma.
The logical response would be to abandon your "hypothesis" that
you cannot even name.

My instincts on your first ozone-teacup post was that you
were a just another Limbaughtomyville dittohead parrot.  Only today
has it come to my attention that in the past you have copied
long anti-environmental passages complete with footnotes,
unattributed, directly from right-wing radio talk show comedian
Rush Limbaugh's book: *The Way It Aught to Be*, to the Net.
Do you deny this? 

It seems my so-called; "nature-hating Limbaughists" charges
were dead-on, wern't they?  Prediction is part of science and logic.

You take Rush Limbaugh's gags seriously?  That "the
environmental community is funded by the Commies?"  Or "long
haired, maggot-infested dope-smoking environmental whackos"?
Or "people can't hurt the Earth!"?  Or "The ozone hole is a HOAX!!"?
Do you really take his gags seriously?  I guess so.  What about
his; "The larger the bra size, the smaller the IQ."???  Or his;
"Feminsts are women too ugly to get married."??? 

>not worthy of sci.environment, 

Sir, it is my opinion that *YOU* have no business posting your
anti-environmental Limbaughtomyville gags and talk-show cartoons
on sci.environment.

CC: e-mail to eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) and Usenet.

--Doug

>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

>>  Yep,  eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote on Thu, 30
>>Jan 1997 22:47:23 GMT about:
>>   Bashford says: Ozone confuses me. 

>>I hate to allow Ebeling to lower me to his level, but it seems 
>>some response is needed.  I was hoping for more from him. 
>>It seems Ebeling's just another general purpose anti-environmental
>>pro-nuke troll like a bead on a string.  

>>Well, I'd suspected it all along.  After Ebeling's storm in a teapot
>>thread disintegrated in confusion, I attempted to get an ordered
>>argument from him, even made some suggestions how to present one
>>by changing the topic to "Ebeling sez: "the ozone ban is bad"?".
>>I was searching for a logical ordered argument, hopefully in
>>the form of syllogisms.   Some honest truth-seeking.
>>Instead of responding to that, he went on a childish ad hominem
>>attack of me with; "Bashford says: Ozone confuses me."   Sigh.  

>>>Since Doug Bashford, in his epic  "middle-of-the-road extremist"
>>>eco-nazi enviro-whackos, vs the evil nature-hating Limbaughists

>>ya, ya...  And in fact, my attempt at order was utterly destroyed.

>>>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

>>>>Ebeling's main argument is "storm in a teapot", which I interpret
>>>>to mean: "ozone bans are bad".  
>>[...]
>>>>I'm not interested in continuing the debate unless he states firmly
>>>>that if his claim "Ozone depletion does NOT cause biological harm" 
>>>>(or some other hypothesis) is falsified, he will admit his position 
>>>>of "ozone bans are bad" is falsified (and admit defeat?).

>>Ebeling failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis.  

>>What he deleted and ignored:
>>>>Mr Ebeling's duty is to present a falsifiable hypothesis.
>>>> I suggest simple syllogism in the form
>>>>of A, B, C, and D  therefore: "the ozone ban is bad".
>>>>Each of A, B, ,C and D being an argument or axiom.

>>>>I other words, present an ordered and thoughtful argument
>>>>BEFORE the terms are debated. 
>>[end insert]

>>>>The following is a repost where Ebeling failed to reply.

>>>Perhaps Doug's newsreader didn't pick it up.  The reply to Doug's
>>>pointless rehash of circular arguments unrelated to the topic of
>>>discussion is in "Re: Ozone hole still raging in my teacup".

>>In fact, mine did not, nor did DejaNews, nor did Alta Vista search
>>engines. There were only two responses to your mystery post, both
>>from Australia.  How odd.

>>>>The only possible defense that I see is (loosely):
>>>>  "Increased surface UV-B does not correlate with
>>>>   increased  human exposure."
>>>>That cannot be falsified, therefore is an unscientific 
>>>>statement.  A non sequitur.  Plus it is silly.  

>>>Oh rubbish. It is the whole point!  If ozone depletion cannot be
>>>correlated with increased human exposure to UVR, then this whole ozone
>>>depletion debate is (as I say) a "storm in a teacup" (for Doug's
>>>benefit - "unimportant").

>>It seems your lack of understanding of the philosophy of science
>>is showing.  If it is rubbish, then please tell us how that statement
>>could be falsified.  If you cannot....  Simple science.  Simple logic.
>>Matters unfalsifiable are outside the realm of science.
>>And in your own words, that is your "whole point!", your entire
>>argument is unscientific.  

>>I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt because you raised
>>some informed questions.  It seems you quickly recognized
>>that your arguments would not stand in a logical presentation
>>so you resorted to this.  Mass confusion, obfuscation, and captious,
>>contumacious arguments again. 
>>We'll not be giving you that benefit again.  You had your second
>>chance and failed.  Oh well.  Some of us just wanted to be sure you
>>had no arguments worth considering.  You lose.

>>-   Growthmania consumes what it promises.  Ecology delivers.
>>--    Douglas bashford@psnw.com -- Middle-of-the-road extremist.
>>Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
>>http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html

- Limbaugh thinks leaving the cap on your coffee cup will
- dilute it.  For that reason he gave Kit Carson hell
- one day.  His theory was, the lid sweats and dilutes
- the coffee.  laughingggg...   Ya, the man is a real
- scientific genius, alright. He should have NO problem
- being able to figure out complex biophysical systems,
- right?  He can't even figure out the environment
- in his coffee cup.