Hysterical Gw Alarmist Policy Goals?

[jeb]

I'm not in the least upset. And there is no sense debating the topic with someone that has proven both their low respect level and low maturity level in such a scant few posts. You are simply spoiling for a fight, plain and simple.

[Quillback]

Yep, ol' Tim seems to enjoy starting divisive and argumentative topics, does nothing except cause bad blood between forum members.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Did I ever tell you guys one time when in school, we were taking a test and I had gas?

Do you know how hard it is to slide one out on those old wooden chairs?

Well, let me tell ya, if you don't do it just right, there will be no doubt as to who it was.

Might as well just lift a leg and let'er rip tater chip!

[Tim Smith]

I'm not in the least upset. And there is no sense debating the topic with someone that has proven both their low respect level and low maturity level in such a scant few posts. You are simply spoiling for a fight, plain and simple.

I do want to debate this issue. It was divisive before I got here, but it's important enough to get it right.

I'm sorry you chose to make this personal (and again off topic) Jeb, instead of taking responsibility for what you've said. Seems a mature person like yourself would take a different route.

I'll point out one last time it's an awfully convenient choice you've made.

Looks like we're done here. Chief has cleared the room.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Regardless of whether you believe humans play a role in climate change or not, it's important to devise strategies ahead of time which limit the damage.

Exactly.

does nothing except cause bad blood between forum members.

I believe that would depend on the individual members. There are obliviously some on here now who don't want others to have the opportunity to debate like adults, and I'm sure it will lead to shutting the thread down. If one isn't mature enough to avoid judging forum members on every post or feels the need to develop cliques, or play censor, than perhaps the should be more selective on what they read?

[Quillback]

Exactly.

I believe that would depend on the individual members. There are obliviously some on here now who don't want others to have the opportunity to debate like adults, and I'm sure it will lead to shutting the thread down. If one isn't mature enough to avoid judging forum members on every post or feels the need to develop cliques, or play censor, than perhaps the should be more selective on what they read?

The topic started off with a confrontational tone.

And it appears you are playing the "censor" role a tad yourself. I'll read what I want and comment accordingly.

[Jerry Rapp]

I, all of us, "debated" this with Tim and others on this subject a few months ago. Tim and I were obviously at opposite sides, but I said that was what free speech was about, I even told him I would be glad to spend a day in a boat with him even though we were totally opposites on this issue. He said he would never spend a day in the boat with me. I guess liberals want their way or the highway.

[Tim Smith]

I, all of us, "debated" this with Tim and others on this subject a few months ago. Tim and I were obviously at opposite sides, but I said that was what free speech was about, I even told him I would be glad to spend a day in a boat with him even though we were totally opposites on this issue. He said he would never spend a day in the boat with me. I guess liberals want their way or the highway.

That's true, Jerry. You started off your comments with personal smears and name calling and other things I don't respect. You seemed pretty proud of all that and I don't care to spend time with you if that's the kind of person you are. I don't fish with liberals who do that either.

Personal comments get threads shut down (which is probably the main reason this thread has been hijacked by personal comments from the denial crowd). Somebody lecture us about respecting the forum some more.

[Tim Smith]

The topic started off with a confrontational tone.

And it appears you are playing the "censor" role a tad yourself. I'll read what I want and comment accordingly.

Yep. It confronted the statement Jeb made that global warming policy was "alarmist" by citing current policy goals...and asking how they were alarmist.

No one (edit) Several people posting have not answered that point yet.

[Al Agnew]

Maybe the op was confrontational in tone, but that doesn't seem to me to justify personal attacks. Besides, the rest of us don't care to read personal attacks. I don't care what you think about another poster (or about me, for that matter). I care about discussing the issues. Personal attacks, and lumping everybody who doesn't agree with you as stupid liberals or stupid conservatives does absolutely nothing to further discussion. I may agree with Tim on this issue, but I like "hearing" other opinions. They may not change my mind, but they at least force me to refine my opinions and marshal my facts.