re: #210 goddamnedfrank

See, now you remember. That wasn’t questioning his “creds,” that was turning his own argument by authority into a question as to why he was ignoring a relevent data set established by the very agency he was claiming to work for. It remains a valid question. If you think AJ’s working for NASA isn’t germane to the question of why he ignores certain inconvenient data sets of theirs, then maybe you should ask him why he brought it up his association in the first place?

This is a very good point. It is one I picked up on as well. The man claims to work for NASA and makes a point out of saying “I work for NASA dude” like he is some expert on this. And his tone was out and out insulting, so I decided to put him down from the get go.

Then he manages to not know things that anyone in this field at NASA would know.

Yeah, it’s OK Frank. He really was being a fraud there. You can call him that.

He is not a fraud in that maybe he does some work for them, but for sure he is a fraud wrt the actual science.