Comments on: Happy 60th Al Gore!

By: Ivan Moroz

Ivan Moroz — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:33:23 +0000

…and of course you Eric are Giant of Thought? If somebody asked Al Gore to have a debate on quantum mechanics or algebraic topology he would definitely reply that can’t debate it because he doesn’t know much on these topics. How about climatology? What kind of arrogance makes him think that he knows anything on this subject? How about you Eric? Do you prefer to have discussing on Global Warming or on Borsuk–Ulam theorem?

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:10:12 +0000

Hesitate to reply further, this being April Fools Day. Talk to you tomorrow.

By: Kyle Huwer

Kyle Huwer — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:00:36 +0000

“it did appear that you were downplaying Gore’s new effort and global warming as well.”
So you acknowledge that my original post was in disagreement with Gore. Good. That was the subject of my post. You commented on my blog picture, and questioned it’s purpose/design/whatever, which is not attacking my subject matter, but rather something of me (something other than the subject, that is). This is why I stated that you were attacking me instead of my argument/comment.

You said that it looked like I was “attacking every single visitor.” So, how am I supposed to interpret that comment? This is especially in light of you saying that you do not think that “a photo of you pointing a gun at me is the same as holding me up.” So, on one hand you are stating that you think that it looks like I am attacking my visitors and on the other hand you are saying that you don’t draw a correlation. I don’t quite understand what you are saying here.

You still didn’t answer my question of what you wanted to know about the picture. Is the picture of me holding a gun? Yes. Is it me pointing a gun at you or any other reader? No. Have I ever pointed a gun at someone? No. Does the perspective of the picture seem like it is pointing towards you? Yes. Does that perspective mean or imply that I am attacking you? Nope. Does that answer your design question?

Validity of global warming. Well, in the art of debate, those who claim something have to carry the burden of proof. So, I think the better question is, what is it that makes it valid?

As I stated in my original post, Gore challenged people to prove him wrong, people came forward, and he refused to debate. This is a disgrace to science as science thrives on a hypothesis, peer reviews and questioning, and then a new hypothesis is made. By a lack of debate, he seems to be showing his true colors.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:57:48 +0000

Kyle, bro. Listen. You came to MY blog and commented. Don’t start getting all mouthy or I’ll make you leave. You are obviously not used to my sarcasm. Let me introduce myself. I’m Eric. I’m usually sarcastic. As is Joe here. My comment about you attacking or robbing your visitors was a wee tongue in cheek. So no, I’m not suffering from the type of brain damage that would make me think that a photo of you pointing a gun at me is the same as holding me up, but thanks for asking!

You weren’t quite clear in your first comment, but it did appear that you were downplaying Gore’s new effort and global warming as well.

My question is (again): Is it by design that you are pointing a gun at your readers at your blog? That makes the third time I’ve asked. It wasn’t an attack. It was a question. You know the difference right? An attack would be “Kyle, you stupid fucking piece of shit. Your dumbass website points a gun at people you idiot”. My question was “is it by design that your blog points a gun at people?”.

You see the difference?

Oh, and feel free to enlighten us all on the “validity of global warming”. Just don’t insult your hosts. You are a guest here. Have fun.

By: Kyle Huwer

Kyle Huwer — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:42:09 +0000

@8: You seriously think that I am attacking or holding you up? It is merely a picture so get quit getting your ruffled panties in a bunch.

Did I ever say that we are not affecting our climate? If so, please point that out to me as I must have missed it Eric.

Do I want to debate the validity of global warming? Sure.

Is it by design of what? What exactly do you want to know about my picture? I’d be glad to answer your question providing I understand what you are exactly asking.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:32:19 +0000

Attacking you? LOL. I was merely pointing out that you look to be attacking every single visitor to your website…or holding them up one. Not sure.

We can go round and round on global warming, but do you really wanna do that? We are affecting our climate by our actions in being addicted to oil. Hell, even GWB admitted as much (the addiction part). Our inability to see this - for one - and to take action - for two - endangers us all no matter the political persuasion. The only people you’ll find denying this come out of right-wing think tanks or are getting money from oil companies.

Now. Maybe you can answer MY question. Is it by design?

By: Kyle Huwer

Kyle Huwer — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:23:11 +0000

@6: As always… attack the person instead of the subject…

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:51:44 +0000

@5: Kyle, is it by design that your blog points a gun at people? Scary. Thanks for stopping by!

By: Kyle Huwr

Kyle Huwr — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:47:12 +0000

Oh please. Al Gore challenged anyone to debate him on the GW issue and has declined hundreds if not thousands of those debates.

And I am sure that the volcano under Antarctica doesn’t matter either?

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:21:45 +0000

@2: why, is profit bad or something?