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

madokie

(51,076 posts)
25. Its the way you present
Sat Oct 19, 2013, 09:27 PM
Oct 2013

what you're calling good scientific information.
Its not ever so often you check in here, thats a lie cause anytime there is any argument made that calls into question what you believe may cast doubt on nuclear energy you just so happen to check in. I don't buy that for a second. You're monitoring what is being posted here about nuclear energy as sure as I'm typing right this minute. It wasn't but a short time earlier that I posted what I did that you replied to so that doesn't sound like someone who just checks in here from time to time. This has happened on many other occasions too.

Most scientist I've read though out the years has had a good grasp of the written word, something you seem to lack so many times in your screeds so that causes me to question your creds too.

Look I've no interest in being banned from this board or this group so I'd appreciate if you'd proof read what you post for correct information and it being presented in a manner that would encourage pleasant discussion rather than screeds that calls into question our sanity for what we may say that you, in your infinite wisdom, disagree with.
I doubt that other scientist put up with your manner of discussion so that too causes me to question the truth in the statement that you are a scientist. Intelligent people don't have to go around telling others how damn smart they are either. It will just come through.

I say you are less than truthful when you say you are a scientist. Pretty intelligent person I can accept but a true scientist, no, I can't. I base this on the many mistakes I've seen in your screeds both factual and typographical.

As often as you appear in threads questioning the sanity of using nuclear energy to boil water and if you are a scientist as you say you must be paid well so why is it you are not a paying member of DU? I'm old, I'm retired and I find money to donate and have since day one here because I understand that a board like this doesn't just happen, it takes lots of effort and lots of money.

If you want to be taken seriously by me and I'm sure there is others too you'll have to tone down your attitude. A lot!

Recommendations

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

winning! phantom power Oct 2013 #1
No worries, eh? pscot Oct 2013 #2
Japan seems to have had no short term options except to jump from the frying pan into the fire. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #3
There was at least one much better option phantom power Oct 2013 #4
The domain of "short term options" is defined by political as well as technical feasability. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #5
Nuclear isn't at all compatible with renewables. kristopher Oct 2013 #8
So, the solution is...more coal-fired plants? NickB79 Oct 2013 #11
Interesting article from the Grauniad, thanks! GliderGuider Oct 2013 #12
You can build coal plants optimized to support variable generation. kristopher Oct 2013 #13
Where the economics clash, the plants shut down NickB79 Oct 2013 #14
"Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given. kristopher Oct 2013 #15
Its not so much radiation that people are terrified of madokie Oct 2013 #17
We frack here dbackjon Oct 2013 #6
Great example of why spending on nuclear is counterproductive to fighting GHG emissions kristopher Oct 2013 #7
Sure, sure... PamW Oct 2013 #9
That is pretty simplistic thinking that ignores many dimensions of the issue kristopher Oct 2013 #10
You know and I know that doesn't matter to this poster who you are replying too madokie Oct 2013 #18
I don't know about you.. PamW Oct 2013 #20
Pam you can be anyone or anything you want to be, I don't really care madokie Oct 2013 #21
I never understand... PamW Oct 2013 #23
Its the way you present madokie Oct 2013 #25
If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out... PamW Oct 2013 #28
Scientifically WRONG!!! again PamW Oct 2013 #19
There you go again madokie Oct 2013 #22
The animals are doing fine.. PamW Oct 2013 #24
The animals aren't doing fine, thats bullshit madokie Oct 2013 #26
The reason is that animals are thriving... PamW Oct 2013 #29
Mainly because animals have short lifespans NickB79 Oct 2013 #31
You really don't see what you say, do you? kristopher Oct 2013 #27
BAD nonscientific assumption being made. PamW Oct 2013 #30
No DrGreg, I didn't make a bad assumption. kristopher Oct 2013 #32
Lets talk about this a little bit madokie Oct 2013 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Japan on gas, coal power ...»Reply #25