Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

28. It isn't "opposing views" that is the problem here.

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #27)

Thu May 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

May 2012

It is deliberate disruptive behavior and the deliberate use of false information.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Whatever happened to the idea of starting an antinuclear activism group? [View all] XemaSab May 2012 OP

I don't think there ever was any such enthusiasm. FBaggins May 2012 #1

I think the reason the Peak Oil group doesn't get traffic... GliderGuider May 2012 #2

Lol... no, I don't think that's it. FBaggins May 2012 #3

You're probably right. GliderGuider May 2012 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author bananas May 2012 #5

I don't recall anyone calling for an antinuclear activism group, but that might be a good idea. bananas May 2012 #6

That is about as good of an idea if ever there was one madokie May 2012 #15

My original remarks kristopher May 2012 #20

Start a petition and let's do this XemaSab May 2012 #21

And what of those who want both? FBaggins May 2012 #23

My idea RobertEarl May 2012 #43

And here we have a classic example of almost unbelievable disruption: Nihil May 2012 #45

Whoa RobertEarl May 2012 #47

How come you never made me a host? bananas May 2012 #7

Let's hear your campaign speech. FBaggins May 2012 #8

Do we have 20 hosts? kristopher May 2012 #9

Do we need 20 hosts? FBaggins May 2012 #10

What does it matter if we "need" 20 hosts? kristopher May 2012 #11

The reason is pretty obvious. FBaggins May 2012 #12

You want a campaign speech? bananas May 2012 #13

I assured you that I wouldn't lock threads that were on topic XemaSab May 2012 #16

The thread was on-topic, as you later conceded bananas May 2012 #32

I think this highlights the need for another group XemaSab May 2012 #33

It highlights the fact that you can't be trusted. nt bananas May 2012 #34

What about the OP do you find disingenuous? XemaSab May 2012 #35

Count me in madokie May 2012 #14

Oh, yeah, now I remember XemaSab May 2012 #17

Who has to be convinced? Procedurally, what has to happen? phantom power May 2012 #18

I think all that needs to happen is for someone XemaSab May 2012 #19

What was suggested: "Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power" kristopher May 2012 #22

The Environment/Energy forum is going to stay as it is XemaSab May 2012 #24

Then if the nuclear club wants a safe haven... kristopher May 2012 #25

I have no idea what you're talking about XemaSab May 2012 #26

The "nuclear club" neither wants nor needs a "safe haven". FBaggins May 2012 #27

It isn't "opposing views" that is the problem here. kristopher May 2012 #28

Who do you think the disruptors are? XemaSab May 2012 #30

Same pro nuke article made the rounds today @ D Kos and DU FogerRox May 2012 #31

Not an appropriate question. FBaggins May 2012 #38

And a question for you: XemaSab May 2012 #41

No. Of course not. FBaggins May 2012 #48

I agree XemaSab May 2012 #49

That would be nice... FBaggins May 2012 #36

I'm saying this as your friend: XemaSab May 2012 #37

It sounds like it would just become two echo chambers NickB79 May 2012 #29

We'd be fine if E&E was more E and less E. joshcryer May 2012 #39

I meant "globalization" there, but I'm leaving that. joshcryer May 2012 #40

Nah ... it had too many letters ... Nihil May 2012 #44

To the extent that this group becomes more about E and less about E GliderGuider May 2012 #46

We need a poll RobertEarl May 2012 #42

I started a petition: XemaSab May 2012 #50

Is your intention to shunt antinuclear discussion into that group? kristopher May 2012 #51

Kick for visibility XemaSab May 2012 #52