Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

Just to remind you, I asked:
"Given the choice, who would you rather trust (or trust the most): Greenpeace or Moore?"

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I'm not wasting time on the first question, I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable and especially not in the context of this discussion and Moore's misleading arguments fail to convince. It's just a waste of time on a point that may never be agreed upon, where measurement of rationale is difficult at best. Time is too limited to reasonably spend on such matters.

Hardly a reasonable response to a question asking someone's opinion. "Trust the most" is asking for opinion. There were no facts or figures implied, and you could have declined or even ignored it, but instead you've continued with this attitude. I didn't have to agree on it, and indeed that wasn't the point, and it didn't require a great deal of time.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

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

Come on, you like me really

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

It is derogatory when you persistently criticize others for not having an opinion, when they have no opinion to offer and have repeatedly expressed so. Read my text, I have no firm view on Greenpeace. Can you move your attention span beyond that.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

Ask what you want, but not repeatedly when it's been clearly expressed that there is no further view to add. You just continuing the same line which I have already highlighted. I have nothing to add about Greenpeace as I don't know much about them.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

As I explained umpteen times, the interview in the article was with Patrick Moore, not Greenpeace. I was commenting on Moore's responses in the article. The article did not ask Greenpeace questions, so in relation to the article I have nothing to say about Greenpeace. In general terms regarding Greenpeace I have already explained my position ( i.e. I don't have a firm view on Greenpeace ), yet you persist and persist and persist and I can only suspect you have nothing better or more important to do with your time.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Just to remind you, I asked:
"Given the choice, who would you rather trust (or trust the most): Greenpeace or Moore?"

Hardly a reasonable response to a question asking someone's opinion. "Trust the most" is asking for opinion. There were no facts or figures implied, and you could have declined or even ignored it, but instead you've continued with this attitude. I didn't have to agree on it, and indeed that wasn't the point, and it didn't require a great deal of time.

And my answer is I don't have a firm view on that and to answer a question like that properly, I think you would need a firm view on both Patrick Moore and Greenpeace. I also think it's an unimportant, stupid, loaded, petty, time wasting and subjective question, that's not worth an answer, because it's unlikely that any answer would be objective to a reasonable standard and the degree of objectivity applied from any side could not be easily measured and thus it's a time waster. It's a question going nowhere, other than leading to more petty debate. Nobody is going to answer your every question, just because you want them to, especially if they deem the question not worthy and that's their prerogative, and needs no justification. That's my opinion, like it or lump it. Read my text, No firm view on Greenpeace or Patrick Moore. There you go, you now have my opinion. Who do you trust more, Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy ?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It is derogatory when you persistently criticize others for not having an opinion, when they have no opinion to offer and have repeatedly expressed so. Read my text, I have no firm view on Greenpeace. Can you move your attention span beyond that.

I have never critized anyone for not having an opinion. Go read both our posts, and you'll see that all I've done is ask you a question, and any critizism of you is in your attitude towards being asked. Its statements such as:

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.

That are deserving of criticisim. I've already covered why I strongly disagree with this.

You said of Moore:

might reflect an undercurrent of bitter cynicism

An opinion. Which is fine.

I clearly stated that "no comment" was a perfectly viable response, but you were the one who had a go at me for even asking the question.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

And my answer is I don't have a firm view on that and to answer a question like that properly, I think you would need a firm view on both Patrick Moore and Greenpeace. I also think it's an unimportant, stupid, loaded, petty, time wasting and subjective question, that's not worth an answer, because it's unlikely that any answer would be objective to a reasonable standard and the degree of objectivity applied from any side could not be easily measured and thus it's a time waster. It's a question going nowhere, other than leading to more petty debate. Nobody is going to answer your every question, just because you want them to, especially if they deem the question not worthy and that's their prerogative, and needs no justification. That's my opinion, like it or lump it. Read my text, No firm view on Greenpeace or Patrick Moore. There you go, you now have my opinion. Who do you trust more, Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy ?

Its fine not to have an opinion, but there's nothing wrong in asking the question. Especially when you already expressed an opinion on a related topic. That I might disagree with your comment on Moore is irrelevant.

Your previous opinion was also far from objective. Something I haven't criticised you about, you're entitled to your opinion.

I don't expect everyone to answer every question. What I do expect is that they don't object so strongly being asked such a question, which I fail to see as being unreasonable in the context it was asked.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I have never critized anyone for not having an opinion. Go read both our posts, and you'll see that all I've done is ask you a question, and any critizism of you is in your attitude towards being asked. Its statements such as:

That are deserving of criticisim. I've already covered why I strongly disagree with this.

You said of Moore:

An opinion. Which is fine.

I clearly stated that "no comment" was a perfectly viable response, but you were the one who had a go at me for even asking the question.

Here we go again, twisting the fact of the matter. Initially I did not go on at you for asking the question. I indicated I was not wasting my time on that question. My time. I also indicated that I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable. I maintain that view. I further responded to your persistent non acceptance of my answer. Ask whatever you want but don't automatically expect people to have a view. My attitude is a reflection of the fact that you persistently go on about me not answering the question, when I have no answer to express. If someone says they don't have a view to express, so be it. There are umpteen viable responses. It's not for you to solely decide what's appropriate for someone else, in terms of how they should convey their response. I told you repeatedly I have no firm view about Greenpeace. That is my comment and that should have been sufficient for a reasonable person to accept. I also re-iterate that I'm not going to provide an answer to what I believe to be a silly question. Your persistence is further example of what I'm talking about and only further weakens this whole nonsense that you spin. When someone says no, they generally mean it.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Here we go again, twisting the fact of the matter. Initially I did not go on at you for asking the question. I indicated I was not wasting my time on that question. My time.

And yet you find time to not answer it with pages of discussing why you shouldn't answer it. BTW, exactly how have I twisted what you have said? Or do you not want to answer that either?

I also indicated that I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable. I maintain that view.

Fine, no problem. I asked for your opinion, following your expression of a previous opinion so what was the problem with me asking it? What makes you the person to decide that such a question is:

I deem it incredibly subjective and not reasonably provable and especially not in the context of this discussion and Moore's misleading arguments fail to convince. It's just a waste of time on a point that may never be agreed upon, where measurement of rationale is difficult at best. Time is too limited to reasonably spend on such matters.

-From an earlier post.

You must see that this isn't just "declining to answer", or a "no Comment" or a "I have no opinion on Greenpeace".

I further responded to your persistent non acceptance of my answer. Ask whatever you want but don't automatically expect people to have a view.

My non-acceptance is due to your attitude. Remember, this is only a forum. At anytime we can all simply not reply to someone. Launching into a rant into why I shouldn't ask something is only going to result into the sort of discussion we see here. If you didn't want to answer the question, there a many ways you could of replied other than how you did, and you could have avoided such a long discussion on it. "No comment", or not replying are two examples, but there are other equally non-confrontational responses.

My attitude is a reflection of the fact that you persistently go on about me not answering the question, when I have no answer to express. If someone says they don't have a view to express, so be it. There are umpteen viable responses. It's not for you to solely decide what's appropriate for someone else, in terms of how they should convey their response. I told you repeatedly I have no firm view about Greenpeace. That is my comment and that should have been sufficient for a reasonable person to accept. I also re-iterate that I'm not going to provide an answer to what I believe to be a silly question. Your persistence is further example of what I'm talking about and only further weakens this whole nonsense that you spin. When someone says no, they generally mean it.

This is a perfect example of your attitude. What nonsense do you think I spin? Its you that criticised me for simply asking the question in the first place. I've not criticised you for not having an opinion on Greenpeace, I've criticised you for your response on the qustion, for launching into a rant about me asking the question. For "deeming it incredibly subjective" when I only asked for an opinion.

You hadn't said "no", all you've done is argue the point that the question is not valid, and eventually that you have no opinion on Greenpeace. You could have saved yourself a lot of agro with a different response.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

And yet you find time to not answer it with pages of discussing why you shouldn't answer it. BTW, exactly how have I twisted what you have said? Or do you not want to answer that either?

Ask what you want but you get the answer you get, nobody said you have to like or agree with it. Yet you persist because you don't get the answer you want. A further reflection of your attitude.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Fine, no problem. I asked for your opinion, following your expression of a previous opinion so what was the problem with me asking it? What makes you the person to decide that such a question is:

Ask what you want but you get the answer you get, nobody said you have to like or agree with it. Yet you persist because you don't get the answer you want. A further reflection of your attitude.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You must see that this isn't just "declining to answer", or a "no Comment" or a "I have no opinion on Greenpeace".

I see this remark as nonessential.

Originally Posted by Wobs

My non-acceptance is due to your attitude. Remember, this is only a forum. At anytime we can all simply not reply to someone. Launching into a rant into why I shouldn't ask something is only going to result into the sort of discussion we see here. If you didn't want to answer the question, there a many ways you could of replied other than how you did, and you could have avoided such a long discussion on it. "No comment", or not replying are two examples, but there are other equally non-confrontational responses.

Ask what you want but you get the answer you get, nobody said you have to like or agree with it. Yet you persist because you don't get the answer you want. A further reflection of your attitude.

Originally Posted by Wobs

This is a perfect example of your attitude. What nonsense do you think I spin? Its you that criticised me for simply asking the question in the first place. I've not criticised you for not having an opinion on Greenpeace, I've criticised you for your response on the qustion, for launching into a rant about me asking the question. For "deeming it incredibly subjective" when I only asked for an opinion.

I've given my opinion, yet you still seem to have difficulty accepting it.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You hadn't said "no", all you've done is argue the point that the question is not valid, and eventually that you have no opinion on Greenpeace. You could have saved yourself a lot of agro with a different response.

No agro at all, just don't want to waste my further time in deep thought about your question for which I answered originally. i.e. I have no firm opinion about Greenpeace. Get over it.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its fine not to have an opinion, but there's nothing wrong in asking the question. Especially when you already expressed an opinion on a related topic. That I might disagree with your comment on Moore is irrelevant.

Your previous opinion was also far from objective. Something I haven't criticised you about, you're entitled to your opinion.

I don't expect everyone to answer every question. What I do expect is that they don't object so strongly being asked such a question, which I fail to see as being unreasonable in the context it was asked.

Object all you like, by all means. I can only reiterate my original position. i.e. I have No firm view on Greenpeace or Patrick Moore The rest of your remonstrations comes across as an distraction. Why you persist in wasting your own time when I answered your question initially is anyone's guess. It's just evident you don't like the answer. i.e. No firm view on Greenpeace or Patrick Moore.