Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[The Warlord]

So boring at this point. Same 2 or 3 moves every time. You are incapable of having a proper discussion without scoring points.

Mate, I'm very capable of having serious discussions ... let's talk Cambridge Analytica.

But is inescapable fact that the people you get wound up about are female - Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now Elizabeth Warren.

I'm actually struggling to think of any blokes you lay into. Its to your credit you're not bizarrely obsessed with Obama like so many who favour Trump. You don't go for Bernie Sanders.

The Biden stuff I've seen you post on, but even then, its process not personality.

But the reality is that it is women on one side of politics who get you fired up.

 

[The Warlord]

In politics and associated journalism, its well understood that certain subjects are deemed "feminine" and some "masculine".

Climate change has become feminised for example.

 

[The Warlord]

'Absurd' bail conditions prevent Extinction Rebellion protesters 'going near' other members

Civil liberties groups say bail conditions imposed on Sydney climate change activists are usually reserved for bikie gang members

www.theguardian.com

Snake_Baker

 

[Groin guru]

Mate, I'm very capable of having serious discussions ... let's talk Cambridge Analytica.

But is inescapable fact that the people you get wound up about are female - Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now Elizabeth Warren.

I'm actually struggling to think of any blokes you lay into. Its to your credit you're not bizarrely obsessed with Obama like so many who favour Trump. You don't go for Bernie Sanders.

The Biden stuff I've seen you post on, but even then, its process not personality.

But the reality is that it is women on one side of politics who get you fired up.

No you aren't. You do it all the time. You reduce every discussion to tit for tat and this sort of sexist bullshit is a prime example. Then if I don't engage you drag it into other threads to try and get a reaction there. You did it in snake'e north board thread that turned into a gender debate. Then you did it last week in the trade thread and 'king Corey' called you out on it when you acted innocent. You do it in other forums too. You're "I live for this" comment is true.

Which is exactly why after my 2-week suspension you DM'd me saying you were glad to have you back. missed you around. You just want a person to argue with. Simple as that. Which is fine, a lot of people like discussing and debating - I do. The main aim is to further understanding or exchange ideas. You, on the other hand, spin it back to the character, like clockwork every time. If it isn't gender it is hinting at racism. It's school yard stuff you find on social media and after a constant circle I refuse to engage in it with you on the simple fact that it has gone nowhere. I get nothing out of it so it isn't worth my time. You do not discuss in good faith. So do what you do and try and save face by saying "when the going gets tough he leaves everyone hur dur!!!" I'm not going anywhere. I'll just save my time for worthwhile discussions.

You have twisted things out of your back pocket to suit your agenda.

I've said more about Beta O'Rouke and Bernie than Warren. Only issue I've ever had with Warren is her made up native american indian story that she used to further her career. Nothing to do with being a woman. Not one of my issues related to any of Greta, AOC, or Warren is because they are a woman. AOC wouldn't have been mentioned half as much if you didn't tag me into a rant with her name attached just because you were bored at work/home. You've conveniently disregarded that the democratic nominee I liked the most was Tulsi. I look forward to see what she comes back with in 2024. I have zero issues with women in power as long as they are the best person for the job.

 

[ferball]

what has that got to do with the quoted 97% figure that constantly gets thrown around?

The figure is clearly inaccurate. If it's innacurate people lose trust. Then the lay population that are skeptical go "those bastards lied to us...I knew it was make-believe"

That paper clearly states that AGW is a cause of late 20th century heating. It does it unambiguously. It attributes anywhere from 60 to 80% of temp increases so I don't see how its ended up on a list of papers that aren't part of the 97% consensus.

Can you explain to me how this has happened? Do you understand the mechanism that's used to say this paper somehow doesn't accept that global warming from human activity is a thing? It clearly is part of that consensus and trying to say otherwise is straight up misleading.

IE Its a lie.

The people that do this stuff are deliberately casting doubt on the reality of Global Warming so that people react with the attitude of "its make believe". That's their aim. Again you've fallen for propaganda.

Anyway there's a fair chance most people won't see its make believe as even the most sceptical old farmers I know around here are openly questioning whats going on with the weather. Because its ****ed up.

Last night Rappville - a small in town in NSW - lost 30 buildings. I think its got about 35 or 40 in the town so its effectively gone. Yesterday its was 40 C on the firefront, same the day before less than 10 days into October. Pretty sure that's higher than October records for the surrounding towns and cities. Why don't you ask the people who are in the evacuation centre at ST Mary's primary school in Casino if they think its make believe.

Or better yet don't cos they are already traumatised and heart broken at the loss of their homes, livelihoods and possibly their futures.

 

[The Warlord]

No you aren't. You do it all the time. You reduce every discussion to tit for tat and this sort of sexist bullshit is a prime example. Then if I don't engage you drag it into other threads to try and get a reaction there. You did it in snake'e north board thread that turned into a gender debate. Then you did it last week in the trade thread and 'king Corey' called you out on it when you acted innocent. You do it in other forums too. You're "I live for this" comment is true.

Which is exactly why after my 2-week suspension you DM'd me saying you were glad to have you back. missed you around. You just want a person to argue with. Simple as that. Which is fine, a lot of people like discussing and debating - I do. The main aim is to further understanding or exchange ideas. You, on the other hand, spin it back to the character, like clockwork every time. If it isn't gender it is hinting at racism. It's school yard stuff you find on social media and after a constant circle I refuse to engage in it with you on the simple fact that it has gone nowhere. I get nothing out of it so it isn't worth my time. You do not discuss in good faith. So do what you do and try and save face by saying "when the going gets tough he leaves everyone hur dur!!!" I'm not going anywhere. I'll just save my time for worthwhile discussions.

You have twisted things out of your back pocket to suit your agenda.

I've said more about Beta O'Rouke and Bernie than Warren. Only issue I've ever had with Warren is her made up native american indian story that she used to further her career. Nothing to do with being a woman. Not one of my issues related to any of Greta, AOC, or Warren is because they are a woman. AOC wouldn't have been mentioned half as much if you didn't tag me into a rant with her name attached just because you were bored at work/home. You've conveniently disregarded that the democratic nominee I liked the most was Tulsi. I look forward to see what she comes back with in 2024. I have zero issues with women in power as long as they are the best person for the job.

Interesting points, though you'd have a leg to stand to on if you hadn't spent months dismissing any post I made with your "hahahaha clickbait journalist" stuff.

That's actually what got me interested in you.

 

[ferball]

Yeah nah.

Israel's demise will come internall if it does come.

The ultra-Orthodox.

Give it 30 years and we can have a bet on that in the old folks home.

 

[The Warlord]

 

[ferball]

So boring at this point. Same 2 or 3 moves every time. You are incapable of having a proper discussion without scoring points.

Discuss:

If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts....The proposal would force software developers to quietly implement such sneaky access, and Australia has already passed a law making such backdoors mandatory. The plans have been dismissed as unworkable by experts.

 

[Groin guru]

That paper clearly states that AGW is a cause of late 20th century heating. It does it unambiguously. It attributes anywhere from 60 to 80% of temp increases so I don't see how its ended up on a list of papers that aren't part of the 97% consensus.

Can you explain to me how this has happened? Do you understand the mechanism that's used to say this paper somehow doesn't accept that global warming from human activity is a thing? It clearly is part of that consensus and trying to say otherwise is straight up misleading.

IE Its a lie.

The people that do this stuff are deliberately casting doubt on the reality of Global Warming so that people react with the attitude of "its make believe". That's their aim. Again you've fallen for propaganda.

Anyway there's a fair chance most people won't see its make believe as even the most sceptical old farmers I know around here are openly questioning whats going on with the weather. Because its f’ed up.

Last night Rappville - a small in town in NSW - lost 30 buildings. I think its got about 35 or 40 in the town so its effectively gone. Yesterday its was 40 C on the firefront, same the day before less than 10 days into October. Pretty sure that's higher than October records for the surrounding towns and cities. Why don't you ask the people who are in the evacuation centre at ST Mary's primary school in Casino if they think its make believe.

Or better yet don't cos they are already traumatised and heart broken at the loss of their homes, livelihoods and possibly their futures.

Last 2 sentences are cliche ferbal. Playing that emotion card. Piss off with that bullshit.

I didn't fall for a thing. I said last week that the 97% figure was interesting and the study design is...quite poor to say the least. That I'd prefer a legitimate meta-analysis on the issue as opposed to throwing down an inflated figure.

I posted an article that had direct quotes from authors saying they've been misquoted. You've attacked one part of it in some poor attempt to declare victory. I don't know how many times I have to say this but here goes: I AGREE, CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ISSUE - please read that 50 times to save me the trouble.

The issue in science is people twist statistics to suit their argument. When people do that the lay population latches onto it for dear life. They forget what they did 5 minutes ago but they don't forget that a few scientists manipulated some data to get the results they want. Therefore the default becomes "all scientists lie...you can't trust them" which annoys the hell out of anyone in science.

If you are throwing around 97% and then NASA lists it well it better have some good scientific rigour. Not a "we did a database search and only looked at abstracts" and worse still clearly took things out of context.

So while you have selected one study of those highlighted I pointed out a selection. I did not double-check every one but even if 1 of 5 was incorrectly selected by that article it is still less than 97% isn't it? Yes.

Again, this is counterproductive. If there are lies people will spin it and use it against the climate change movement. DO NOT WANT.

 

[Groin guru]

Discuss:

If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts....The proposal would force software developers to quietly implement such sneaky access, and Australia has already passed a law making such backdoors mandatory. The plans have been dismissed as unworkable by experts.

lol. oh...okay...yes boss.

 

[ferball]

Mate, I'm very capable of having serious discussions ... let's talk Cambridge Analytica.

Both Peter Thiel’s data-mining company Palantir and a daughter of the former Google chairman Eric Schmidt had connections to Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook user information, according to documents seen by The New York Times.

and

LONDON—Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, claims that Sophie Schmidt, the daughter of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, successfully campaigned for The Guardian to scrub her name from one of its bombshell data-abuse stories.In a memoir that will be published Tuesday, Wylie says The Guardian’s willingness to back down in the face of Schmidt’s legal threats—and “water down” a story that had already been published—convinced him he could no longer trust the British newspaper alone to publish his allegations about Cambridge Analytica.

and

Senior executives at Cambridge Analytica – the data company that credits itself with Donald Trump’s presidential victory – have been secretly filmed saying they could entrap politicians in compromising situations with bribes and Ukrainian sex workers.In an undercover investigation by Channel 4 News, the company’s chief executive Alexander Nix said the British firm secretly campaigns in elections across the world. This includes operating through a web of shadowy front companies, or by using sub-contractors.

Ukraine you say? Note the date.

In a series of meetings with a reporter posing as a representative of a wealthy Sri Lankan family seeking political influence, Cambridge Analytica executives initially denied the company was in the business of using entrapment techniques.But Nix later detailed the dirty tricks the company would be prepared to pull behind the scenes to help its clients.When the reporter asked if Cambridge Analytica could offer investigations into the damaging secrets of rivals, Nix said it worked with former spies from Britain and Israel to look for political dirt. He also volunteered that his team were ready to go further than an investigation.“Oh, we do a lot more than that,” he said over dinner at an exclusive hotel in London. “Deep digging is interesting, but you know equally effective can be just to go and speak to the incumbents and to offer them a deal that’s too good to be true and make sure that that’s video recorded.“You know these sort of tactics are very effective, instantly having video evidence of corruption.”Nix suggested one possible scenario, in which the managing director of Cambridge Analytica’s political division, Mark Turnbull, would pose as a wealthy developer looking to exchange campaign finance for land. “I’m a master of disguise,” Turnbull said.

 

[ferball]

Last 2 sentences are cliche ferbal. Playing that emotion card. Piss off with that bullshit.

GAGF then you *en robot. You see that and use it as an excuse to ignore everyrthing else. That's pissweak.

I didn't fall for a thing. I said last week that the 97% figure was interesting and the study design is...quite poor to say the least. That I'd prefer a legitimate meta-analysis on the issue as opposed to throwing down an inflated figure.

Why did you post that bullshit then without even checking to see if it was bullshit or not.

So while you have selected one study of those highlighted I pointed out a selection. I did not double-check every one but even if 1 of 5 was incorrectly selected by that article it is still less than 97% isn't it? Yes.

How? I don't know how many studies there actually are and I'm not wasting my time checking them. Why should I check everything when the first thing i looked at was bullshit. Especially when you can't be bothered to do it yourself. That's even more pissweak.

You are just a propagandist and you only post your propaganda to troll. WAFWOO.

 

[ferball]

lol. oh...okay...yes boss.

See you've got nothing when it comes to actual intelligent discussion of whatever you've just noticed in the last few years.

People are probably better off being banned from facebook with this sort of crap happening.

 

[Flawed Genius]

* me dead

The USA will have this blood on its hands and all to change a media cycle away from an issue which refuses to go away anyway

 

[The Warlord]

Yeah. I've seen the Channel 4 stuff.

The stuff I find really interesting about CA is the 5000 data points on each individual they had for each American. I'm sure that's expanded.

That allowed them, and still allows people like Leave.Uk to send advertising targeted to the individual in away we've never seen before.

With the emergence of deepfake tech, we now arrive at a position where individuals can be sent video of people they already dislike saying stuff the sender knows will push their buttons.

This is deadly dangerous stuff.

 

[The Warlord]

GAGF then you fu**en robot. You see that and use it as an excuse to ignore everyrthing else. That's pissweak.

Groin is great at dishing it out, not so good at getting it back.

 

[The Warlord]

fu** me dead

The USA will have this blood on its hands and all to change a media cycle away from an issue which refuses to go away anyway

This is the ting - Trump's old tricks don't work here.

 

[Groin guru]

See you've got nothing when it comes to actual intelligent discussion of whatever you've just noticed in the last few years.

People are probably better off being banned from facebook with this sort of crap happening.

So because i won't give up my time to discuss a topic you've selected = "got nothing"

Spare me. I'm not a slave. I don't drop everything for others on a blog nor would i expect other to do it in return. Talk about egomaniac

 

[Groin guru]

GAGF then you fu**en robot. You see that and use it as an excuse to ignore everyrthing else. That's pissweak.



Why did you post that bullshit then without even checking to see if it was bullshit or not.



How? I don't know how many studies there actually are and I'm not wasting my time checking them. Why should I check everything when the first thing i looked at was bullshit. Especially when you can't be bothered to do it yourself. That's even more pissweak.

You are just a propagandist and you only post your propaganda to troll. WAFWOO.

Because it tied directly to a conversation i had with val. Not you but you stick your beak in it. If conversation was limited to only discussing stuff we've researched 100% we'd all be mutes.

Try to understand: i said 97% seemed high and the study design was questionable. Someone contacts authors that were inside that "consenus" and they have an issue with it. Therefore, yes...97% is too high. My original point - someone needs to do a better study. Like a meta analysis so we have an accurate figure.

You: WHAT DON'T YOU DARE SAY CLIMATE CHANGE ISN'T REAL. PEOPLE GOT THEIR HOUSES BURNED DOWN GOD DAMMIT. THAT'S PROOF. YOU'RE HEARTLESS

Cliche ferb and failed to miss the point again. Bravo.

 

[ferball]

Yeah. I've seen the Channel 4 stuff.

The stuff I find really interesting about CA is the 5000 data points on each individual they had for each American. I'm sure that's expanded.

That allowed them, and still allows people like Leave.Uk to send advertising targeted to the individual in away we've never seen before.

With the emergence of deepfake tech, we now arrive at a position where individuals can be sent video of people they already dislike saying stuff the sender knows will push their buttons.

This is deadly dangerous stuff.

Yeah. I am guessing this is what you were talking about upthread when you said:

"And everyone should be s**tscared of what they are trying to do, and doing."

I didn't know they had that much data for everyone in the US but I knew it was enough to build usable profiles on people in numbers large enough to effectively influence anything.

There's more stuff - for example the surveys they used on facebook with backdoors into people's devices after they used the surveys.

They use proxies, sub contractors and other methods to maintain some pseudononimity with their activities so basically every app you use on facebook and who knows what apps you use on your devices are potentially opening you to the sort of data mining they did. Plus whatever other sites they use. Your google account for example. I've never had a facebook account because I followed a bit of the funding when it started and some of the people involved. (I'd have to look them up now tho.)

That's basically how they build that data up.

The sort of backdoors that William Barr (who is connected to Jeffery Epstein funnily enough. May be a degree of seperation, maybe not) is demanding be put into all software.

Barr is just blowing hard. Those backdoors are already available to governments for a price tho they may not be in all software.

 

[The Warlord]

What Boris Johnson and Joseph Goebbels have in common

Once people see opponents as 'traitors' to an imaginary 'people', demons of hatred are unleashed. Brexit awoke those demons. This would resonate with the Nazi propagandist, were he alive.

www.afr.com

This is very good.

 

[The Warlord]

Barr is just blowing hard. Those backdoors are already available to governments for a price tho they may not be in all software.

Yeah I remember when the FBI were huffing and puffing that Apple wouldn't open the San Bernadino shooters phone.

Then somehow an "Israeli security contractor" company cracked it.

LOL, such an obvious ploy.

 

[ferball]

Try to understand: i said 97% seemed high and the study design was questionable. Someone contacts authors that were inside that "consenus" and they have an issue with it. Therefore, yes...97% is too high. My original point - someone needs to do a better study. Like a meta analysis so we have an accurate figure.

It still doesn't show the design was questionable. It just suggests it either might be or it might be so obvious that those studies don't actually have a way to question it. IE The way any study into genetics would have to acknowledge DNAs role in transmitting instructions from parent to child. 97% at least and the ones that didn't acknowledge this would be questionable.

If someone else says "your study supports idea X because you say this and this and that is exactly what would support idea X in our opinion" that's a reasonable claim. The first thing i looked at in your post did that. I'm not gonna check the rest. Unless you want to pay me 50 bucks an hour to do it (that's cheap btw).

You're the one who has missed the point.

It doesn't matter what an author of a study thinks of the consensus if their data supports it.

One more thing...

Any survey of climate and earth scientists across the planet will always find well over 80% of those scientists agree that human are a significant driver of global warming.

So you can argue about the 97% all you like but you can't argue with that.

There has never been anything that shows otherwise.

Every time you or someone else brings up the 97% figure and challenges it it seems as if that disproves AGW.

But it doesn't.

It just means there is contention in scientific fields, as there should be for science to work properly.

"The 97% isn't true"

Actually makes it seem reasonable to question the reality of global warming and sounds alot more damning than

"The 97% figure isn't necessarily true, its actually only 82, 84, 88, 90 or possibly 97% depending on what survey you look at."

Which is very different and certainly no reasonable person could use it to throw doubt on the reality of global warming.

 

[B4Bear]

What Boris Johnson and Joseph Goebbels have in common

Once people see opponents as 'traitors' to an imaginary 'people', demons of hatred are unleashed. Brexit awoke those demons. This would resonate with the Nazi propagandist, were he alive.

www.afr.com

This is very good.

That the party of Winston is now the party of Borris shows you more clearly than anything about the downward spiral of the UK.