Put
further comments on that thread, not this one, for this topic in this comment of yours.
Not exact matches
Far from offering the sort of insightful, well - informed take that has brought the site as many as 35 million monthly uniques and won kudos from everyone from Nas to Junot D?az, they were more akin to the sort of juvenile remark one might find buried in the
comments thread on a low - budget news aggregator: cruel, idiotic, shockingly insensitive, and misogynistic.
I actually agree with your original point, but this
thread has deviated so
far away from your original idea and has become defamatory to others that I had to
comment on the matter at hand.
Asking yes / no questions tends to lead to interview mode, and asking questions that don't pertain to your own life makes it hard for you to
further comment on that particular
thread.
Lang seems to pick
on those too polite to accuse him directly of being a liar, but one can readily find circumlocutions such as CBDunkerson «s «The continuing fictional works of Peter Lang» that amount to the same thing, which I didn't have to search
far for: it's in the same
thread containing Ronald Brak's
comment above.
995
comments have been posted
on this
thread so
far.
As
far as can see my last point is exactly the one
on which you wrote your first
comment in this
thread.
If you wish to discuss this
further, please
comment on the
threads that discuss the specific false allegations of scientific fraud, for example, here or here.
There is no attempt to claim precedence, but as
far back as September 14th, I put a
comment (# 3143)
on the IJIS
thread which contained the following text...
Judith, I'm afraid this entire
thread Update
on Spencer & Braswell: Part II (so
far 209
comments) is a complete waste of time.
I've appreciated and agreed with all you have said so
far on my
threads here at WUWT, until your
comment on Hansen.