re: #316 Bagua

Why should I attack Charles? If he made an assertion I disagreed with I would note my position as I did on this thread. The fact is I rarely find anything he says or posts disagreeable.

As to you, we sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, in fact we are often in disagreement as you tend to take a liberal view of many issues (in my biased and slanted opinion) and I tend to take a more conservative view.

As far as any “playbook” I find your insinuation to be overly suspicious. Ludwig gets more of my attention because he is by far the loudest and shrillest voice in the room, with by far the most to say on the issue. I also spend more time chatting with him on a wide variety of issues, most of which we agree on.

You seem to see “shills” a lot, I recall you said something similar to Salamantis. If I may indulge in your method, I note that it is a standard Warmist playbook technique to insinuate that every AGW sceptic or agnostic is automatically immoral, dishonest, or corrupt. It may be true in some cases, Glenn Beck certainly fits those labels, but methinks you carry this a bit too far.

Ooh! Mentioning Glen Beck in a negative sense gets you brownie points! Well played!

Attacking LVQ’s position is attacking Charles’ position. You post no links to support your bias. You just throw sand in the gears. Back up your position with facts. If you can’t do it without incurring the wrath of the Head Lizard, then understand that you bring nothing to the conversation.

You are just a shill.