Originally Posted by daisym

Apologies to all those who wish to discuss the thread topic. I would suggest you put me on ignore until this cat fight is over.

@ Si Modo

If you want to respond to my post, I am quite happy for you to start a specific thread we can devote to thrashing this out, in order to stop detracting from other threads.

You said:


If it is tedious, why respond?

My reasons for responding to your posts are quite clear.As can be seen by my continuing presence here, and by many of the threads I have participated in, I am tenacious. I am not likely to take your personal attacks lying down. My behaviour is not that of a victim.

If you persist in making insulting and offensive comments toward me, you can be assured I will defend myself.

A reasonable person could look at my post - # 31 of Rudd ratifies Kyoto. - which appears the starting point for your personal attacks on me - (the first of which was at post #32, but which has since been edited) and wonder what there was about it that warranted such viciousness on your part.

Now, as someone who should, by virtue of your profession, be displaying a degree of scientific objectivity, or at least an 'enquiring mind,' rather than attacking me it would seem more likely that you would ask - 'now why is she saying this? Is there more to this than meets the eye?'

Don't leave your enquiring mind with your test tube, love - it is needed in the real world of human interaction just as much.

That post in its original form is not at all relevant to what I said, and reminded me of a playground bully making snipes at someone, because they don't have the capacity to admit they may be wrong. Although a personal attack on me, it revealed far more about you than it did about me. That it has been edited should tell you that I am not alone in thinking that it was not appropriate.

I posted a response at #41, and your riposte at #44 was again in the same tone as your previous post. Vicious, personal comments and put downs. Here - and elsewhere in your responses to me, you have repeatedly used 'pop psychology' terms from the 70's and 80's in attempt to address your playground taunts with a veneer of sophistication.

In this post also you revealed your credentials as a scientist -



This is an interesting comment from someone claiming to be a scientist. As a scientist who champions 'the scientific method, scientific discussion and open discussion' on what data did you base your statement that you would be slumming it to look at Australian journals?

I await a response.

Other comments in that post were quite bizarre. I am not your mother Si Modo - I am my children's mother, and I have a very different relationship with them (obviously) than what your mother has with her children. I pondered on things to say there, but in the end, to each his own - just don't assume that your family of origin is the only model of family interaction.

Although, as someone who might claim to have a 'scientific mind' you should be interested to note that parental influence plays a very significant role in influencing children's later career interests.

Now - to come to this current thread:

On this current thread Captain Trips posts a response (#6) to a post of mine in which I referred to another poster as "Spudplanter" - when his 'name' is in fact "Spadplanter."

As Captain Trips/Thane is on my ignore list, I would not have known about this had you not brought it to my attention. At #11 - you make a special post to thank him for pointing out the "insult" I posted.

who is doing the baiting here, Si Modo? Spad didn't think it worth responding to. You made an issue of it, not the 'victim' of the insult. If he wants an apology I will gladly offer him one.

at post #28 I respond to you. You baited me - I took your bait.

at post #34 you responded to another post of mine (outside of this exchange) with a thinly veiled insult.

at post # 36 we get the response from you - which is what I am responding to now.

In that post you state:

Did I in fact claim to be a victim of your interpretations 'alone'? I am well aware that there are a number of posters who it is difficult to communicate with. Primarily people who are unable to communicate with those they disagree with without launching into crude insults. Most of these I have on ignore.

I would be interested to see this long list, and what has been identified as a snipe. Please, ask your fellow warriors to collate a list of all my outrages against their vulnerable selves. When I have that - I will no doubt be able to collate a list of 'snipes' they have directed towards me, in most cases, snipes that pre date any originating from me.



Your use of the term "projection" here either indicates
(a) you have not been reading my responses to you,
(b) you don't understand the meaning of the term, or
(c) you are again using terms adapted from psychology to cover your playground taunts with a patina of sophistication.

which, I wonder? Maybe a combination?

I would like to see you argue, objectively and with supporting statements, just WHERE I am projecting my issues onto you.

You, and those who allow you to speak on their behalf, are welcome to interpret what I say in the way you choose, but as I said above - if you want to use it to attack me - then support what you are saying with hard facts, rather than making vague assertions. As a scientist you should appreciate the importance of this, before drawing conclusions about what you THINK I am doing.

Re guilt by association: You appear to team up with certain other posters in your vindictive attacks on other posters. This can't be proven, although I am sure a look at who you send and receive pms from would provide support for my theory. Of course though, one can only work with the evidence at hand.

I have observed that although you've been here at USPO for almost a year, its only in the last 4 weeks you've been contributing to any discussions on the environment - and your first posts happened to be on a thread discussing Australia signing the Kyoto Protocol ( Rudd ratifies Kyoto. ) - IMMEDIATELY after you had just had quite acrimonious (on your part) discussions on a thread re the Australian elections ( Australian federal elections – Place your bets! ). Both you and Traveler contributed to both these threads together. A quick look at both of them does seem to indicate a degree of collusion WRT your responses to other posters.

If I had time I could find other examples of this - although they are not proof - they are certainly circumstances that would appear suspicious if the occur too often.

Nevertheless, despite your attack on me for my lack of a science background, your qualifications in a science field haven't yet enabled you to contribute much to discussion on environmental issues. I hope to see an improvement.

Here are some links to some discussions I have been involved in over the years at USPO - and there are many more. When you can contribute to the discussion as I have done, THEN you can tell me how much better qualified you are to discuss global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Al Gore & "An Inconvenient Truth" (Merged)

Scientists: global warming is real - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

"Countdown to global catastrophe" according to international scientists - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives (from about p12 for some dialogue between myself and Cato)

Man Made Global Warming? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives Thread started (24/04/2004)

Of course, it is possible the environment is not a topic that interests you - and your purpose for coming to these threads is to attack other posters.

Re the other poster mentioned:

Yes, I realize that Chiquita would be unfamiliar to you - however posters who have been here a long time may also see some similarities emerging between you two.

This thread will give you an introduction to her style of posting (read from about p20 if you don't have a lot of time):

Earth has suffered irreversible damage - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives



Reading back over your posts - with an open and enquiring mind - should give plenty of clues. I'm not interested in dragging other people into an argument with you. The thread you started not long after you joined: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/sugg...americans.html (and discussions in many other threads), shows ample evidence. Although it starts out sounding reasonable enough - your tone throughout is arrogant, and displays ignorance about human beings (as does your baiting me). Needless to say, there are many Americans on this forum who are not so thin skinned as yourself, and are able to take criticism of US actions without reacting as if its a personal attack.



It may be that your responses to female posters of other nationalities uses a different approach, or one I notice more. I will retract my statement that its foreign women, however - its anybody foreign unless they want to kiss America's arse, I suspect.





I take it that you identify yourself as a 'true' feminist? What is a true feminist, Si Modo? Working in a male dominated field and expecting the same recognition and treatment as a man receives doesn't necessarily a feminist make. You can be a self serving individual quite capable of putting down and denigrating other women - in case they hinder your progress through the taint of association.

Such women may well try to use 'the solidarity of true feminists' as a sophisticated bullying tool.

Your participation in THIS thread: Pornography and Feminism should have taught you that I am not the person to pick a fight with over definitions of feminism. I recall you took offence over my discussion with Sucre re the difference between American and European feminism - and had to back off when you realized it wasn't that I assumed you were an idiot because you were American.

I recall you participating in this thread also: White Privilege and Male Privilege . I should think that being familiar with my posts there should also indicate to you not to argue feminism with me.

Social theory (of any sort) is NOT your strength. You admitted not being familiar with one of the best known American social theorists - and I don't hold this against you. I am not familiar with many highly regarded figures in your field, and in many others. But if you want to accuse me of dilettantism - look to yourself as well. And be careful playing dilettante with pop psychology - it is very easily misapplied.

Its also not very scientific.

I would never presume to know more about chemistry (or physics or maths for that matter) than you do. Even when it comes to plant chemistry I'll bow to you - although the chances are I have far more practical experience on growing food.

You said:



I expect to have civil discussions even where there is disagreement. If you are so concerned about people developing false assumptions about you, behave in a more civilized manner.
Dressing up schoolyard bullying by using 'sophisticated' labelling such as 'passive aggressive' and the like does nothing to correct any (allegedly false) assumptions I may have about you.

Call me victim if you will, but you come across as feeling put upon by virtue of your nationality. A truly paranoid reaction IMO - my criticism of American politics is not a criticism of the American people - despite encounters with people like you. Fortunately there seem to be more sane and balanced Americans - at least based on those I have met, and on most participants on this forum.

you said:



I would suggest you take a breather, and backtrack over your responses to me. Now - think about it - are you QUITE SURE you are comfortable with what you have said? WHAT is it I'm blind to? Rest assured, your hostility shines through loud and clear - and has been sufficient in one post to have been edited by moderators.

You said:



its true. you are quite vicious. no less vicious than other posters who have been suspended.

you said:



you are welcome to do so. recent response you have made to any of my posts is baiting. If you don't want to engage in this game - back down now. I am no victim, never have been, and will not back down from attacks on my character by someone such as yourself.

I would suggest if you think you are going to have a 'win' over me, you check through the archives and familiarize yourself with my history here. That way you will see that to continue this line of attack, you are in for the long haul. Do you want to go there?



you are free to

(a) not respond
(c) stop going after posters with whom you disagree with, and/or
(b) present yourself as a more reasonable human being

In all cases, there would be no way I would form such negative (and to my mind accurate) perceptions of you, and there would be no need for resentment on your part.

Originally Posted by skeptic1

Re:"daisym;1129991]Apologies to all those who wish to discuss the thread topic. I would suggest you put me on ignore until this cat fight is over."

Better you simply ignore Si Mondo and keep your blood presure in bounds.

Originally Posted by daisym

....
That post in its original form is not at all relevant to what I said, and reminded me of a playground bully making snipes at someone, because they don't have the capacity to admit they may be wrong. Although a personal attack on me, it revealed far more about you than it did about me. That it has been edited should tell you that I am not alone in thinking that it was not appropriate....

Originally Posted by Si modo

........
- Yeah, my mother has a son who is nuclear engineer, but one would never hear her claim that she knows much about nuclear energy to aggrandize her contribution to a discussion on the subject...she has class. In addition to studying Mideast culture, and whatever else you have claimed you have "studied" (it’s hard to recall all of your claims of superior experience since they are so numerous), you now claim that you have studied environmental science, through acquaintances and your son, for the last however many years you claim. That's a dilettante. Own it. Be proud of whatever it is you actually do for a living and claim some authority in that. But if you claim expertise in all that you have claimed you have done, you are a master of nothing....

Originally Posted by JHC

....

Please do follow the link to "the study" which is a compilation of experts expressing their concern that the scientific process is influenced by political motivation. In what instance is this NOT a concern?

Originally Posted by Si modo

If anyone says it is not a concern, they would be foolish. The climate should be studied and it is being studied. Drawing premature conclusions with expensive ramifications based on political agendas would be foolish.

Originally Posted by JHC

Indeed. We are in quite a predicament.
What is it that you are alluding to as being "premature conclusions with expensive ramifications"?

Originally Posted by Si modo

Oh. I am against the USA's ratifcation of Kyoto. Earlier this year the Brookings Institution came out with a nice (in the sense of equity) alternative, IMO.

Originally Posted by JHC

OK.

And you consider the costs of signing on to Kyoto are too high because the science behind global warming is insufficient?

You made a comment to WOI earlier that you were reluctant to consider the political influence of the Chinese government on Chinese scientific research but don't hesitate to damn US research for the political influence on US researchers. That appears to be an indication of ideological bias....