Australian Politics Forum - IPCC models vs Observed Data

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #60 - May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

You see gizmo? The data and facts are presented to you - they stare you square in the face and you close your eyes to the truth

I am starting to wonder whether you will ever love the children again.

Look at their faces gizmo - why do you want to sacrifice them on the altar of a fire laden scorched planet? Haven't you got a beating heart in your chest man?

http://stylepantry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kids-smiling.jpg

LOL ah yes, the "why do you hate the children" response.........a sad and hopeless gambit, used when you can't refute the other person's evidence.

The children aren't in any danger from this mythical 'fire laden scorched planet', they are more danger from a cold and desolate planet but the greatest risk is suffering from poverty and economic collapse when the idiot warmists try to stop a natural occurrence (natural global warming) by throwing vast amounts of money down the toilet.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now Roll Eyes

Where do you get that idea from?

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #61 - May 29^th, 2015 at 12:09am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

Are you implying that there are actual human beings walking around on the surface of this planet who actually believe the earth isn't warming?

What sort of asylums do you hang around in gizmo?

If I didn't know you better and we weren't very close friends, I would swear that you were trying to openly lie to the children of this world.

I hope this isn't true mate. I really do mate.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #62 - May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

You see gizmo? The data and facts are presented to you - they stare you square in the face and you close your eyes to the truth

I am starting to wonder whether you will ever love the children again.

Look at their faces gizmo - why do you want to sacrifice them on the altar of a fire laden scorched planet? Haven't you got a beating heart in your chest man?

http://stylepantry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kids-smiling.jpg

LOL ah yes, the "why do you hate the children" response.........a sad and hopeless gambit, used when you can't refute the other person's evidence.

The children aren't in any danger from this mythical 'fire laden scorched planet', they are more danger from a cold and desolate planet but the greatest risk is suffering from poverty and economic collapse when the idiot warmists try to stop a natural occurrence (natural global warming) by throwing vast amounts of money down the toilet.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now Roll Eyes

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #63 - May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

By "personal attacks" Gizmo - are you referring to people that show you up to be a bald-faced liar?

Do you remember when you told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up"?

It was on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461/24#24

You were asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your statement - but you never did, did you. Because you are a liar.

I am sorry if pointing out that you tell lies is what you consider a "personal attack". But if your don't like it - perhaps you should stop telling lies.

Why don't you start right here. You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

How about your show us some evidence to support that - or, if you can't to that - apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Could you do that Gizmo?

Back to top

IP Logged

Marla

Gold Member

Offline

A joint a day keeps the
MAGA away

Posts: 15035
Colorado
Gender: female

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #64 - May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am

lee wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

Actually, I was going to say that Marla comes across as a numpty, an airhead. That it seemed she went to college on a cheerleading scholarship.

I was then going to go on to say that should that characterisation be incorrect, she could post a reasoned argument, with references, rather than trite cliches.

I believe I have posted videos that clearly demonstrate the Koch Brothers involvement in covering up global warming by hiring the most inane scientist who spew noting but b.s. for the likes of yourself.

Many like this one exist all over Youtube. Find them for yourself.

Seems to me you're the "airhead" by recycling an argument that has been resolved.

Have a nice day

Back to top

I like takin' Tuinal. It keeps me edgy and mean. I'm a teenage schizoid I'm a teenage dope fiend

IP Logged

Marla

Gold Member

Offline

A joint a day keeps the
MAGA away

Posts: 15035
Colorado
Gender: female

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #65 - May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Good science you say? What is that? Any conspiracy website full of disgruntled scientist who either had their thesis shot down more times then you asking for a prom date or have no qualified academic degree to begin with?

Like I told you, Bat Boy, keep on posting your Koch-funded horsehockey to delude yourself that you're actually making a difference from the confines of your parents basement.

Back to top

I like takin' Tuinal. It keeps me edgy and mean. I'm a teenage schizoid I'm a teenage dope fiend

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #66 - May 29^th, 2015 at 3:35am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

By "personal attacks" Gizmo - are you referring to people that show you up to be a bald-faced liar?

Do you remember when you told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up"?

It was on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461/24#24

You were asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your statement - but you never did, did you. Because you are a liar.

I am sorry if pointing out that you tell lies is what you consider a "personal attack". But if your don't like it - perhaps you should stop telling lies.

Why don't you start right here. You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

How about your show us some evidence to support that - or, if you can't to that - apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Could you do that Gizmo?

gizmos indirect hate, ... I mean love!??!, for the kids knows no bounds. He will start writing a story about a new identity that will pretend to do that rather swiftly I am almost unsure love hate love hate rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Huh

yay liberal party and lomborg and stuff etc.... I am a high upperclass sheeple and stuff Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21376
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #67 - May 29^th, 2015 at 11:34am

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am:

I believe I have posted videos that clearly demonstrate the Koch Brothers involvement in covering up global warming

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:17am:

Seems to me you're the "airhead" by recycling an argument that has been resolved.

I don't bother myself with youtube, a classic waste of time.

Which argument has been resolved? The Science is settled, mantra?

I think you spend too much time reading "The Wit and Wisdom of Barry O", which is a very short publication.

Actually I just viewed that Youtube; hilarious. So much truth crammed into so little time.

Temperatures flat according to the satellite data.

Sea level rise is not accelerating. (if you see a trend map, the line is linear.)

I forgot the polar Bears. see http://polarbearscience.com/ by Dr Susan Crockford

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 29^th, 2015 at 12:02pm by lee »

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #68 - May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Marla wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 5:56am:

Ajax wrote on May 26^th, 2015 at 9:24pm:

That's real science.

No question about it. Real Koch Brothers-funded science.

I'm amazed on how you manage to find so many "credible" scientist in the anti-global warming who are not really scientists at all.

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Running commentary with no facts to back you up..??

You're not chimps sister are you.......!!!!!!

So now we move on to personal attacks and misogyny? Why does this not surprise me?

Try reading some of the posts by other pro-warming people on here, if you want to see personal attacks.

By "personal attacks" Gizmo - are you referring to people that show you up to be a bald-faced liar?

Do you remember when you told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up"?

It was on this thread:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1432639461/24#24

You were asked time and time again to provide evidence to support your statement - but you never did, did you. Because you are a liar.

I am sorry if pointing out that you tell lies is what you consider a "personal attack". But if your don't like it - perhaps you should stop telling lies.

Why don't you start right here. You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

How about your show us some evidence to support that - or, if you can't to that - apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Could you do that Gizmo?

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar', which incidentally I have not been "shown to be" as you claim, only accused( and wrongly too).

I did provide some links to back up my claim, which you misinterpreted as not showing an increase in overall Antarctic ice mass. And given the way you work, any other links I use to show either a 'slowing' of the predicted/claimed Arctic ice loss, or even a relative increase in the yearly average ice mass at the Arctic will be rejected due to which site hosts the links, rather than who wrote and researched the paper or the contents of the study.

p.s if you want to identify a 'bald-faced lie' try one of these: "The science is settled", "98% of scientists agree with AGW" etc. THOSE are outright, deliberate falsehoods, designed to deceive (which is the definition of a lie)

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #69 - May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #70 - May 29^th, 2015 at 4:45pm

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Good science you say? What is that? Any conspiracy website full of disgruntled scientist who either had their thesis shot down more times then you asking for a prom date or have no qualified academic degree to begin with?

Like I told you, Bat Boy, keep on posting your Koch-funded horsehockey to delude yourself that you're actually making a difference from the confines of your parents basement.

Little miss muffet you sound like everything is a conspiracy to you.

Are the failed predictions of the IPCC climate models about how hot is should have been today not a conspiracy to you even though observations have shown them to be wrong.

This lead them to saying stupid things like the heat has gone into the oceans, first they said the top 700 metres, then they changed it to the deep oceans.

But since 2002 we have the ARGO system a 3000 strong bunch of buoys positioned all over the worlds oceans and taking temperatures down to 2000 metres deep.

Guess what the oceans aren't heating up the way the IPCC says they are, or the Maldives would have been under water now like the y predicted.

What about the signature effect of Anthropogenic global warming which is suppose to warm the tropopause according to those crappy climate models in their computers you know the HOT SPOT.

Well miss muffet weather balloons and satellites have failed to find this hot spot.

Should alarm bells be going off in your head right now, i' mean every thing the IPCC (the experts) have said has all fallen in a heap.......??????

I guess you think that the world trade centre buildings fell in accordance with the report that was published in less than 12 months while they started to clean the biggest forensic site up just after 3 or 4 weeks.

If I told you that controlled demolition was used on the trade centre buildings you would say another conspiracy theory.

With youth like you coming through the system, the oligarchy isn't only going to have its cake but they will eat it to.

All at your expense... so wake up FFS.

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #71 - May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

http://theesposure.com/DAMMnation/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/smoking_monkey.gif

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #72 - May 29^th, 2015 at 5:00pm

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:

Marla wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 3:31am:

Ajax wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Frankly my dear I don't think you would know good science if it smacked you between the eyes.

Good science you say? What is that? Any conspiracy website full of disgruntled scientist who either had their thesis shot down more times then you asking for a prom date or have no qualified academic degree to begin with?

Like I told you, Bat Boy, keep on posting your Koch-funded horsehockey to delude yourself that you're actually making a difference from the confines of your parents basement.

Little miss muffet you sound like everything is a conspiracy to you.

Are the failed predictions of the IPCC climate models about how hot is should have been today not a conspiracy to you even though observations have shown them to be wrong.

This lead them to saying stupid things like the heat has gone into the oceans, first they said the top 700 metres, then they changed it to the deep oceans.

But since 2002 we have the ARGO system a 3000 strong bunch of buoys positioned all over the worlds oceans and taking temperatures down to 2000 metres deep.

Guess what the oceans aren't heating up the way the IPCC says they are, or the Maldives would have been under water now like the y predicted.

What about the signature effect of Anthropogenic global warming which is suppose to warm the tropopause according to those crappy climate models in their computers you know the HOT SPOT.

Well miss muffet weather balloons and satellites have failed to find this hot spot.

Should alarm bells be going off in your head right now, i' mean every thing the IPCC (the experts) have said has all fallen in a heap.......??????

I guess you think that the world trade centre buildings fell in accordance with the report that was published in less than 12 months while they started to clean the biggest forensic site up just after 3 or 4 weeks.

If I told you that controlled demolition was used on the trade centre buildings you would say another conspiracy theory.

With youth like you coming through the system, the oligarchy isn't only going to have its cake but they will eat it to.

All at your expense... so wake up for goodness sake.

Well, Ajax, I certainly would say that controlled demolition of the WTC was a conspiracy theory.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

rabbitoh08

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1528
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #73 - May 29^th, 2015 at 5:18pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Seriously rabbit, give it a rest, it was not a lie, just because you believe it to be wrong doesn't make me 'bald-faced liar',..)

Look gizmo mate, you have been exposed on this point categorically and emphatically - rabbit has demonstrated that you in fact wilfully lied to this honourable forum.

At least have the courage and integrity to apologise to everyone on Ozpolitics so we can all move on from this. You cant just gallop in here and deliberately lie and expect to get away with it. Surely you have some self respect left. Apologise and then take a 3 month break from this board so that you can take a long good look at yourself in the mirror mate. Apologise to yourself and then you can return with a small amount of integrity and credibility.

As it stands your posts are embarrassing at the moment - rabbit is urinating and defecating all over your smelly carcass and all you can do is continue to add lie after lie after lie after lie....its pathetic gizmo - do it for the children mate

http://theesposure.com/DAMMnation/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/smoking_monkey.gif

No, actually he hasn't. And posting in big letters won't change that.

Actually - you have Gizmo.

You told us that global glacial mass balance is "going up".

This is a clear falsehood. Not a matter of opinion. A lie.

We know it is a lie because you have not posted a single piece of evidence to support that ridiculous claim.
Not one single piece.

Then to make matters worse, you have compounded your lie by pretending that you did provide evidence.

You didn't Gizmo. Not one single piece.

You could easily prove me wrong right now by re-posting any evidence you claim to have posted. Why don't you do that Gizmo?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: IPCC models vs Observed Data
Reply #74 - May 29^th, 2015 at 8:49pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 28^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:

Then your log book is as inaccurate as everything else you post.

You see gizmo? The data and facts are presented to you - they stare you square in the face and you close your eyes to the truth

I am starting to wonder whether you will ever love the children again.

Look at their faces gizmo - why do you want to sacrifice them on the altar of a fire laden scorched planet? Haven't you got a beating heart in your chest man?

http://stylepantry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/kids-smiling.jpg

LOL ah yes, the "why do you hate the children" response.........a sad and hopeless gambit, used when you can't refute the other person's evidence.

The children aren't in any danger from this mythical 'fire laden scorched planet', they are more danger from a cold and desolate planet but the greatest risk is suffering from poverty and economic collapse when the idiot warmists try to stop a natural occurrence (natural global warming) by throwing vast amounts of money down the toilet.

Gizmo doesn't even agree with the products of combustion now Roll Eyes

Where do you get that idea from?

You saying global warming was a natural occurence: obviously you are not accounting for the man made CO2 Wink

But does Co2 actually 'cause' global warming??? That IS after all the basic point of dispute about agw.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged