Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I have expressed a general view on Moore in the context of the article that was referred to, nothing more. Others may have differing views and that's their prerogative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article also mentions Greenpeace in context of Moore, and given that you expressed an opinion on Moore, it would seem reasonable to ask your opinion on Greenpeace in relation to Moore. If not why?

Your replies thus far further demonstrate your attitude.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article also mentions Greenpeace in context of Moore, and given that you expressed an opinion on Moore, it would seem reasonable to ask your opinion on Greenpeace in relation to Moore. If not why?

Your replies thus far further demonstrate your attitude.

You can ask for an opinion on anything. That doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to offer one. Nobody has presented an article on an interview with Greenpeace that I have seen in this forum. Any person with a smattering or more of grey matter, can clearly see the Newsweek interview is with Patrick Moore and not Greenpeace and it's a nonsense to put Greenpeace in the same context of this interview with Moore. That's a very weak rationale, surely you can do better than that. Surely you don't do yourself justice putting forward questions like that, or do you ?

The key responses pertaining to the questions raised in the article mentioned in this thread, are Moore's responses, and not Greenpeace's. It's nonsensical to use the same analogy of Greenpeace, unless you have an interview with Greenpeace for people to read. In this case, its blindingly clear the interview is with Patrick Moore and shows Moore's responses to the questions put to him. Naturally people are going to be commenting about Patrick Moore's responses in the interview. Thus it's clear your questions so far, further demonstrate your attitude. Disappointing to say the least.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No I'm not saying what you said, but what I said. I'm not going to elaborate further. What I said is clear enough for people to form their own reasonable interpretation and they don't need my confirmation on that. Once you start naming proportions and amounts it becomes very speculative.

Earlier you said:

Nuclear energy costs could skyrocket without fossil fuels, yet we desperately need to meet a growing energy demand and reduce burning of fossil fuels or clean up their act, adding more costs. The imperative is also for sustainability on several levels, particularly on an environmental and economical basis.

Firstly, you're being speculative, so why do you object to others asking speculative questions?

Given that the energy cost of wind is comparable to nuclear, and solar PV is generally cited as being even greater (although new studies are needed), it would seem reasonable to suggest that nuclear, wind and solar costs would increase without fossil fuels. If not, why?

There are various numbers one could use, but here's and example:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You can ask for an opinion on anything. That doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to offer one. Nobody has presented an article on an interview with Greenpeace that I have seen in this forum. Any person with a smattering or more of grey matter, can clearly see the Newsweek interview is with Patrick Moore and not Greenpeace and it's a nonsense to put Greenpeace in the same context of this interview with Moore. That's a very weak rationale, surely you can do better than that. Surely you don't do yourself justice putting forward questions like that, or do you ?

The key responses pertaining to the questions raised in the article mentioned in this thread, are Moore's responses, and not Greenpeace's. It's nonsensical to use the same analogy of Greenpeace, unless you have an interview with Greenpeace for people to read. In this case, its blindingly clear the interview is with Patrick Moore and shows Moore's responses to the questions put to him. Naturally people are going to be commenting about Patrick Moore's responses in the interview. Thus it's clear your questions so far, further demonstrate your attitude. Disappointing to say the least.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753


[/size][/font]

I asked your opinion on something, and you're trying to turn it into another argument. Well done for further demonstrating your true nature.

The fact is that Greenpeace is mentioned in the article, that Moore used to be in it, and they both have opposing views on nuclear power. You'd written:

Anyway getting back on topic for a change, one may at times wonder if Patrick Moore's seemingly somewhat unqualified remarks, rather guns blazing in delivery, might reflect an undercurrent of bitter cynicism. The picture Moore seems to offer, appears like a snapshot of the status quo on dollar cost, presented in terms of generalities, with scant acknowledgement of the carbon cost factor being the very reason the world seeks clean renewable energy solutions, that over time don't rise as significantly in cost, unlike fossil fuels dilemma the world now faces. Nuclear energy costs could skyrocket without fossil fuels, yet we desperately need to meet a growing energy demand and reduce burning of fossil fuels or clean up their act, adding more costs. The imperative is also for sustainability on several levels, particularly on an environmental and economical basis.

Moore mentioned nuclear, wind and solar, and you think he is bitter. Its a fair assumption that that alleged bitterness would be linked to Greenpeace, owing to the context of the article.

Its not a nonesense at all to mention Greenpeace, especially this, and the stand that Greenpeace has on these issues.

If you don't want to answer that just say "no comment".

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I asked your opinion on something, and you're trying to turn it into another argument. Well done for further demonstrating your true nature. The fact is that Greenpeace is mentioned in the article, that Moore used to be in it, and they both have opposing views on nuclear power. You'd written:

That is part of the point. There is barely any argument ( but of course as usual you seem to like to pretend there is ), becuase Greenpeace's views are not directly represented in the article. As I said before, little was represented in the article about Greenpeace's views, other than a seemingly blanket opinion from Moore. The article predominantly centres on Moore's expressed views. I have highlighted this underlying fact you seem to ignore, quite blindly and deliberately. Fortunately my true nature is able to see through this nonsensesical point you make. You really can't pull the wool over peoples eyes that easily.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Moore mentioned nuclear, wind and solar, and you think he is bitter. Its a fair assumption that that alleged bitterness would be linked to Greenpeace, owing to the context of the article.

I indicated

might reflect an undercurrent of bitter cynicism

That's all. That's is clearly not an absolute. As usual though you seem to have a tendency to deliberately miss-quote me, perhaps to try to gain some credibility I suppose, or perhaps to make my opinions seem worse than they are, for lack of another more glorifying explanation. Moore comments on why he left Greenpeace, but we don't get Greenpeace's side of the story in this article, thus it doesn't make sense to form any strong view on Greenpeace in relation to this article. The views expressed are Moore's views and thus its reasonable to think that comments would largely relate to Moore's views.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its not a nonesense at all to mention Greenpeace, especially this, and the stand that Greenpeace has on these issues.

Mentioning something is one thing, mentioning something in a coherent and meaningful way is completely different. The analogy of commenting on the interview with Moore and commenting in analogous terms about scant reference to Greenpeace and its views, does not even come close in relation to this article. This is an article about Patrick Moore and his views on environmental issues, that largely focuses on nuclear and renewable energy. The interview was not with Greenpeace and thus it is clearly not rational, to form firmer views about Greenpeace, than views about Patrick Moore, in relation to commenting about this article.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you don't want to answer that just say "no comment".

If I don't want to awnser, I either will not awnser, or I will say whatever I want, to explain that I don't want to awswer, as I did and will continue to do. You I suspect will continue to make of it what you so choose and do as you invariably always do.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

That is part of the point. There is barely any argument ( but of course as usual you seem to like to pretend there is ), becuase Greenpeace's views are not directly represented in the article. As I said before, little was represented in the article about Greenpeace's views, other than a seemingly blanket opinion from Moore. The article predominantly centres on Moore's expressed views. I have highlighted this underlying fact you seem to ignore, quite blindly and deliberately. Fortunately my true nature is able to see through this nonsensesical point you make. You really can't pull the wool over peoples eyes that easily.

Actually, the point is that I'm not making the argument, you are. I simply asked for your opinion, not facts, not cited studies, but opinion and one that is in context with the article and the discussion from which I asked it. You true nature is there for all to see once more.

I indicated That's all. That's is clearly not an absolute. As usual though you seem to have a tendency to deliberately miss-quote me, perhaps to try to gain some credibility I suppose, or perhaps to make my opinions seem worse than they are, for lack of another more glorifying explanation. Moore comments on why he left Greenpeace, but we don't get Greenpeace's side of the story in this article, thus it doesn't make sense to form any strong view on Greenpeace in relation to this article. The views expressed are Moore's views and thus its reasonable to think that comments would largely relate to Moore's views.

Show one place where I've misquoted you. That would involved me editing what you've said, which I've never done.

This comment shows perfectly your attitude. Every regular on this board has a view on Greenpeace (good or bad etc), and it is therefore reasonable to ask such a question when GP is mentioned in the article. Our views of GP are not confined by just reading that article, and anyone who says they are, are lieing.

If I don't want to awnser, I either will not awnser, or I will say whatever I want, to explain that I don't want to awswer, as I did and will continue to do. You I suspect will continue to make of it what you so choose and do as you invariably always do.

There was me giving you an option, and you spit out your dummy.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Actually, the point is that I'm not making the argument, you are. I simply asked for your opinion, not facts, not cited studies, but opinion and one that is in context with the article and the discussion from which I asked it. You true nature is there for all to see once more.

There is no argument other than what you think there is in your own head. I've given my opinion. The fact that appears not enough to satisfy you, shows your true nature and motives. I have expressed my opinion, get over it. If you're not satisfied with the answers you get, that's your problem. I'm not here to answer all your questions, though I will express opinion like anyone else when and where I see fit. There are too many other posts to read without spending excessive time answering your every whimsical concern.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Show one place where I've misquoted you. That would involved me editing what you've said, which I've never done.

No time to be bothered going through old posts. However I have seen you misrepresent my comments several times though, not necessarily by quote. That's my opinion with which I don't expect you to agree and you don't have to agree and am not concerned about that. Its just an opinion based on my general observations. Get over it and move on.

Originally Posted by Wobs

This comment shows perfectly your attitude. Every regular on this board has a view on Greenpeace (good or bad etc), and it is therefore reasonable to ask such a question when GP is mentioned in the article. Our views of GP are not confined by just reading that article, and anyone who says they are, lieing.

Well that near entirely sums up your derogatory attitude. You don't know for a fact, that every regular on this board has a view on Greenpeace. You don't speak for everyone. How self conceited and presumptuous. Ask the question by all means, but don't assume you will get the answer you demand. Of course I'm aware of Greenpeace and what they stand for in general terms, but I don't have a firm view about them. Nothing unreasonable about that, I'm not a member of their organization and I have not read any in depth articles about them. I don't have a firm view about Patrick Moore either, other than my generalized impressions from the article in question in this thread. If someone says they don't have a view to express, just accept it and move on. The fact that you so soften seem to have trouble letting go, says something about your attitude.

Originally Posted by Wobs

There was me giving you an option, and you spit out your dummy.

Grow up, nobody needs your options charity. If someone says they don't have a view, accept it and move on. I don't have time for the degree of pettiness you persist with. Surely your time is more valuable than to spend it persisting with this onerous shrill. Chat forums are full of subjective opinions and it's pointless persisting with a line of argument just for the sake of killing time, when the useful subject matter is near exhausted and nobody is further interested.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

[size=2][font=Arial][font=Arial][size=2][font=Arial][size=2]

There is no argument other than what you think there is in your own head. I've given my opinion. The fact that appears not enough to satisfy you, shows your true nature and motives. I have expressed my opinion, get over it. If you're not satisfied with the answers you get, that's your problem. I'm not here to answer all your questions, though I will express opinion like anyone else when and where I see fit. There are too many other posts to read without spending excessive time answering your every whimsical concern.

Your opinion seems to be that you have no opinion, but you can make that last for a full screen of non-opinion. I only asked one question, which you refused to answer, well done. Instead launching into another rant about how irrelevant it is to ask your opinion.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

[size=2][font=Arial][font=Arial][size=2][font=Arial][size=2]


Well that near entirely sums up your derogatory attitude. You don't know for a fact, that every regular on this board has a view on Greenpeace. You don't speak for everyone. How self conceited and presumptuous.

Saying that every regular here has an opinion on GP is not derogatory, or in anyway negative towards anyone. I'm sure some will have opinions that differ to mine, but one doesn't hold a grudge against them.

Ask the question by all means, but don't assume you will get the answer you demand. Of course I'm aware of Greenpeace and what they stand for in general terms, but I don't have a firm view about them.

I can ask a question of course, but that doesn't justify your attitude here. You could of declined to comment, but instead your posts showed you as someone who objects to being asked, and refuses to even see why such a question should be asked, even though it was in context with the article.

Nothing unreasonable about that, I'm not a member of their organization and I have not read any in depth articles about them. I don't have a firm view about Patrick Moore either, other than my generalized impressions from the article in question in this thread. If someone says they don't have a view to express, just accept it and move on. The fact that you so soften seem to have trouble letting go, says something about your attitude.

Its not unreasonable to decline to answer, but your attitude thus far has been far from reasonable. Its not what you say its how you say it. You expressed a general view on Moore which is fine, but I see no reason why I shouldn't have asked your opinion on GP in the same context.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Your opinion seems to be that you have no opinion, but you can make that last for a full screen of non-opinion. I only asked one question, which you refused to answer, well done. Instead launching into another rant about how irrelevant it is to ask your opinion.

An my awnser to your silly question on Greenpeace is that I don't have a firm view on them, get over it.