Poptech

Poptech has reported a post.

Reason:Post: Reminder
Forum: Environment & Energy
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: Clippo
Original Content:

Poptech

Poptech has also reported this item.

Reason:

Jeff

This seems to be a fair complaint to me.

Clippo

Poptech is in effect calling me a liar.

I believe the forum has a policy on this that the accuser must specifically say what is untrue.

If they can't then they should be given a warning.

Moderators please make a judgement on this.

How can I have made 'slanderous' accusations about Exxon when it is clearly in the public domain and even implicit in their Global Climate Coalition publications.

If you want I can give you several very independent exposes on Exxon's activities but there are so many of them, I'm spoilt for choice.

Jeff

Clippo,complaining about his opponent again we see,being the class snitch again as well.

Get some backbone man,and try to play fair with your opponents.

Poptech

Yes Clippo, you are a liar and will be called one when you lie, like you just did about the BBC program and Exxon. You stated, I quote:

Directly implying that the BBC program discussing the skeptical side of AGW is related to Exxon. This is slanderous propaganda that would not hold up in court. The moderators should take action to prevent unfounded accusations like this from being spread by you. Maybe you would like to talk directly to Exxon's attorneys? I am sure you can make your case to them. Why has no one won their case in court? Maybe because all cases such as these have never held up to legal scrutiny. Propagandists like you lie to try and manipulate the public's emotions because you cannot win an argument based on facts. That is dishonest.

angelman

Clippo/Poptech - you both seem to be passionate about this subject and both seem fairly entrenched with your views!!! As you cannot seem to "persuade" each other to change your views, can we just get along and accept that not everyone has the same view rather than descend into not so friendly "debate"?

I realise that the trigger for this seems to have been an Exxon merchandising link. I thought that this was TIC as Clippo does refer to Exxon plants quite frequently (and I have been asked in a round about way whether I was an Exxon plant). I have not seen enough of Poptech's posts, as I am a new arrival here, to know whether he does work for Exxon or not. If he does then the link was rightly deleted but still it really doesn't make a difference to his views and other posts. Surely he is allowed an opinion regardless if it is Exxon's "party line" or not.

I find both Clippo's and Poptech's posts informative, and fortunately I was born with a brain of sorts that allows me to think for myself and make my own decisions to form my own opinions. Being told that they are wrong is annoying and a tad arrogant, although I realise that this is borne out of a sense of frustration.

The subject is far too emotive for its own good, and I think detracts from the issue at hand. That is in the big wide world and hopefully something we can avoid on this forum.

g hall

The problem as I see it (this is specifically for angelman but anyone else is free to read and debate) is that Clippo is very good at giving it but unwilling to take it and routinely resorts to insulting other posters particularly those who have the temerity to debate with him. This is because his technique mainly consists of making statements without fully citing sources.
He also believes that stating I am right and you are wrong without reasons to be fully acceptable form him but not from others.
He does also post misconceptions particularly about consensous and the fixed postion of the science of climate change which is quite clearly nonsense.

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
Remember TANSTAAFL and TANJ

Clippo

I complained about Poptech's post only because it was totally commercial and did not add value to the debate.

The mods agreed with me and deleted the post.

Poptech took umbrage at this and threw his dummy out of the pram - and then posted this complaint in a fit of pique.

Historically, I believe the forum has unwritten rules to say that if you accuse another poster of telling lies, then you have to back it up with fact.

Poptech has not done so - only suggesting I should be ticked off for 'slander'. Does he really know anything about the law of slander ? If he thinks I have slandered Exxon, then perhaps he should contact Exxon and invite them to sue me and/or the forum.

I know that there are several people on the forum who have 'legal' qualifications and/or experience. Perhaps they would give their judgement.

And if it goes against Poptech then he must be censured and retract publicly his 'lies' allegations. Did he actually watch the BBC program ? Did he actually read the Luntz memo?

Once again g hall's last post is a total corruption of the facts of our debates here and world opinion on GW. Over the last few years, he and other contrarians have continued to make snide remarks about my debating style (and drag Akria and besoeker and others into it) because wherever, possible, I do publish realistic links to information supporting my case. Whereas they, almost exclusively publish links to thoroughly debunked contrarian myths.

Angelman, the reason I suspected you as being a Troll was precisely from my past experiences on this forum.

Finally, back to the Exxon thing, perhaps you would all like to read thro' the following link :-
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_report.pdf

Moderators :- please make a judgement on this complaint.

Poptech

First of all I do not work for Exxon, second my post was clearly a joke in response to Clippo's slanderous allegations against Exxon.

Your comments about Exxon have nothing to do with the the BBC program and are outright slander. Your last worthless link in no way defends your comments in relation to the BBC broadcast. If the moderators here are going to allow unsubstantiated slander like this then let us know outright so it is in the open.

Clippos moved to have my post deleted because it directly challenged his views on Exxon in the most egregious way possible (as my intention). He is outright lying in stating that if it was to Greenpeace he would have made the complaint and everyone here who has had to listen to his lies knows this.

If anyone here thinks for a minute that suggesting some handful of forum members buy an Exxon hat in jest is going to in any remote way help Exxon's bottom line then they have no remote comprehension of economics.