Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: "How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer. [View all]Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)72. You need to go find yourself a hobby or something.
I posed several questions to xema and she has finally addressed a couple of them - what she neglected to mention is that she is actively against mainstay renewable energy development in all cases except rooftop solar. That completely contradicts the idea she floats that climate change is her primary concern.
And being so dead-set against nuclear makes you what, totally impartial and non-biased?
There are two other issues I'd like to see addressed. The first is why she didn't tell Skinner that a discussion was ongoing. In any election process the action can only be seen as a (successful) effort to steal an election. She's been asked to explain but she is dedicated to avoiding answering for her actions.
Yet, up to this point she has been nothing but fair to you, while you continue to be a disruptor and ceaseless whiner. Isn't that special?
The second is her claim to be able to be fair. There is another thread on whaling where after a series of attempts by her to falsely portray me as being a supporter of whaling, I brought up the questions she has been dodging. Her response was to 1) threaten to lock the thread, and 2) promise "I will make a good faith effort to be fair"
Anybody who wishes to read through that thread will see the myriad and sundry ways in which you have contradicted yourself, and will see your horrible attitude for what it truly is. The whole "lock the thread" thing was hypothetical, so you can stop being so fucking disingenuous any day now.
That brings us to another of my questions above. HEr claim is that she will be fair, yes. But she conducted a multiyear "don't feed the "kea" campaign that is still hanging out there waiting for an explanation.
So, you were called a bird a few times and some people had a bit of humor at your expense. Do you really want to hold that up as an example of some horrible conspiracy against you? The whole thing has done nothing to stop you from posting here, and as far as I can tell it NEVER stopped you from trying to force whatever you thought your point was at any given time. So really, quit the whining.
In closing, reading through both of those threads you linked shows that going back more than 3 years you have been insufferably obtuse and ALWAYS disingenuous. Compare that to a few "kea" jokes from XemaSab. The evidence which you yourself have linked speaks for itself.
And being so dead-set against nuclear makes you what, totally impartial and non-biased?
There are two other issues I'd like to see addressed. The first is why she didn't tell Skinner that a discussion was ongoing. In any election process the action can only be seen as a (successful) effort to steal an election. She's been asked to explain but she is dedicated to avoiding answering for her actions.
Yet, up to this point she has been nothing but fair to you, while you continue to be a disruptor and ceaseless whiner. Isn't that special?
The second is her claim to be able to be fair. There is another thread on whaling where after a series of attempts by her to falsely portray me as being a supporter of whaling, I brought up the questions she has been dodging. Her response was to 1) threaten to lock the thread, and 2) promise "I will make a good faith effort to be fair"
Anybody who wishes to read through that thread will see the myriad and sundry ways in which you have contradicted yourself, and will see your horrible attitude for what it truly is. The whole "lock the thread" thing was hypothetical, so you can stop being so fucking disingenuous any day now.
That brings us to another of my questions above. HEr claim is that she will be fair, yes. But she conducted a multiyear "don't feed the "kea" campaign that is still hanging out there waiting for an explanation.
So, you were called a bird a few times and some people had a bit of humor at your expense. Do you really want to hold that up as an example of some horrible conspiracy against you? The whole thing has done nothing to stop you from posting here, and as far as I can tell it NEVER stopped you from trying to force whatever you thought your point was at any given time. So really, quit the whining.
In closing, reading through both of those threads you linked shows that going back more than 3 years you have been insufferably obtuse and ALWAYS disingenuous. Compare that to a few "kea" jokes from XemaSab. The evidence which you yourself have linked speaks for itself.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
164 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer. [View all]
kristopher
Dec 2011
OP
Please clarify a couple of your views; when asked earlier you sidstepped the questions.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#28
So she didn't tell Skinner there was an ongoing discussion because I too volunteered to be host?
kristopher
Dec 2011
#8
Do you understand that this thread has nothing to do with the scientific value of Jacobson's paper?
GliderGuider
Dec 2011
#32
I was about ready to swallow that emotional maturity argument and then I saw JPak as a host.
Massacure
Dec 2011
#19
In my defense - I usually respond to vicious over-the-top personal attacks with real laughter
jpak
Dec 2011
#30
He's trying hard to get the thread locked and (he hopes) himself blocked as disruptive.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#153
I knew from the beginning E/E would face the most contentious discussion re hosts ...
eppur_se_muova
Dec 2011
#37
This "host selection" has been exactly contrary to the stated process in the DU3-Announcements-forum
Kolesar
Dec 2011
#61
"The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval" makes that pretty clear
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#66
"This one has been cleared by Skinner as a re-visit of "Do we need hosts?" = BS
kristopher
Dec 2011
#85
I think it is blatantly obvious to every reader of this thread exactly who is being "self serving".
Nihil
Dec 2011
#101
In other words you do not have a reason to oppose splitting EE into two groups.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#127
And you insist that your interpretation of what "the science" says is the correct one.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#136
You said "the guy has a right to exist." Who is denying him that even with his disruptive behavior?
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#98
What you thought has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked of Xemasab.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#86
You obviously think that a discussion is "ongoing" until you get what you want.
FBaggins
Dec 2011
#99
And you obviously think that stealing the postion of host is a legitimate act.
kristopher
Dec 2011
#103
Groups can have from 0 to 20 hosts. I have a simple solution to resolve this thread.
freshwest
Dec 2011
#130