Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 7
th, 2011 at 12:32am:
Soren wrote on Jun 6
th, 2011 at 12:28pm:
Luke Fowler wrote on Jun 5
th, 2011 at 10:35pm:
Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.
That's just what the more perceptive fraternity around here has been pointing out, drongo, before your farcical entry from stage left. The point Jones was making was not disputed.
... and you were going so well.
I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making. You need to practice reading things s l o w l y so you understand them.
The author was stating that it was Jones' assessment of the
significance of the figures that was incorrect, not the figures themselves.
The point Jones was trying to make was based on the figures but was definitely in dispute. That being the whole point of the article in question.
Oh well, you got really close. Next time, eh kid?
The opening lines of the original post:
astro_surf wrote on Jun 2
nd, 2011 at 8:27am:
[quote]As the media watchdog prepares to investigate talkback host Alan Jones over his climate change coverage, Bob Beale says Jones's numbers just don't add up.
The author of that article headlined his effort precisely as a dispute of the numbers becasue he thought 'they just don't add up', but couldn't - so he gave us 750 words about bathtubs and hoped nobody would notice. And sure enough, idiots like you who could not remember by paragraph 2 what you read at the opening bought the waffle, chiefly because you retained the only idea that matters to you: that it was an article somehow against Jones - A GOOD THING.
But you are stupid enough to parade your lack of comprehension
even of your side of the argument, so stupid in fact that you contradict the author TWICE:
Quote:Here's a hint, he does not dispute the figures.
and
Quote:I said nobody was disputing the figures but that is not the point the author was making.
As Kierkegaard so memorably said more than a hundred years ago (I paraphrase): "stupid smacking drongos like you, Luke (may I call you Luke?), have no idea about either scientific facts or about a coherent argument".
He was right. You just drone on about whatever 'gotcha' moment arrested your gnat-like attention spans. Go on, have another social studies degree. Have two.
WIth people like you waffling
for AGW, no wonder it's a buggered notion. (
Either/or, Book 2, p. 121.)
Forum
Pages: 
