Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Be so good as to point out the "names" I called you.

*sigh* your normal "debating style, you are an adult of reasonably intelligence, you figure it out yourself.

Bob didn’t call you any names.

I sincerely doubt "myopia" is meant as a compliment. Besides that, Bob is well known for his ad hominems or personal attacks and I hate that kind of debating style. What Bob always does is taking a small portion of a comment which he doesn't like and then his strategy is taking a formal stand, you are feeding this behavior with this comment. If it is technical "name calling" or not is irrelevant, the behavior is childish and should not be accepted.

It’s not name calling either, if he’d called you a c...t, or similar that’s name calling.

you are missing the point, Rob.

Dutchy wrote:

you are missing the point, Rob.

No he is not. He is fairly evaluating the evidence by reading the posts in this thread.

You refused to cite an instance where I "called you a name." You failed to do so because it is impossible..........there was no name-calling.

The use of "myopia" or short-sightedness refers to a condition, and is not name-calling.

Were your words "Selfish and foolish answer." in post # 48 name-calling on your part? Who was selfish and foolish?

It is time for you to "remove the mote from thine own eye..................."

Were your words "Selfish and foolish answer." in post # 48 name-calling on your part? Who was selfish and foolish?

The "answer", see where the difference between your repeated ad hominems and my contributions?

Dutchy wrote:

Were your words "Selfish and foolish answer." in post # 48 name-calling on your part? Who was selfish and foolish?

The "answer", see where the difference between your repeated ad hominems and my contributions?

Yes, I do see. All of your ad hominems are to be considered "contributions". Your name-calling becomes something else.

Having a magic wand with which to excuse one's actions must be a wonderful thing.

BobPatterson wrote:

All of your ad hominems are to be considered "contributions".

Which ad hominems? Please point them out to me and since you are such a believer in precise wording, I am sure you are going to use the correct definition of it.

tommy1808 wrote:

The US conservatives favorites, India, Mexico and China have all surpassed the USA in renewable electricity share.

best regards
Thomas

Yet we have a thread in the Civil Aviation forum about how bad the pollution is in New Delhi. They exclaim that it's even much worse than Beijing. I detest Trump but signing an accord doesn't mean you're actually doing anything.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

All of your ad hominems are to be considered "contributions".

Which ad hominems? Please point them out to me and since you are such a believer in precise wording, I am sure you are going to use the correct definition of it.

"Selfish and foolish answer."

johns624 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The US conservatives favorites, India, Mexico and China have all surpassed the USA in renewable electricity share.

best regards
Thomas

Yet we have a thread in the Civil Aviation forum about how bad the pollution is in New Delhi. They exclaim that it's even much worse than Beijing. I detest Trump but signing an accord doesn't mean you're actually doing anything.

But the fact of the matter is that they are doing something, they just start of from worse. The Paris agreement also is about greenhouse gases, not about particulate matter in the air, the former melts ice in Greenland and elsewhere, causing global problems, the latter mostly kills people in India, which ain´t a global problem, but something for the local government to address.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

But the fact of the matter is that they are doing something, they just start of from worse.

you also have to ask where you "place" the footprint.

At the producer side?
At the consumer side?

I'd follow the product trail and soundly load the carbon bill of the final consumer.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

All of your ad hominems are to be considered "contributions".

Which ad hominems? Please point them out to me and since you are such a believer in precise wording, I am sure you are going to use the correct definition of it.

"Selfish and foolish answer."

haha, you insist on using the proper phrases and now it doesn't suit you, you don't, that is hypocrite.

You do understand the difference between calling you an idiot and your answer and idiot answer, right? Just to be sure, ad hominems are the first, I did the second, so let me ask you again, show me where I did an ad hominem in this thread. My guess is that you will not answer anymore like you have done multiple times when you are cornered. You have held the bar very high for others - not just me - but in the end, you do it more often than others and that is just irritating.

Dutchy wrote:

You have held the bar very high for others - not just me - but in the end, you do it more often than others and that is just irritating.

I admit to the possibility that what you have just stated is true. I have made no attempt to compare the frequency of my use of ad hominem to your frequency or that of anyone else.

But I do not, as you do, make use of a magic wand to wave away my faults. My skin is not so thin that I am unable to own up to my errors, or to claim a wrong has, magically, become a "contribution".

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You have held the bar very high for others - not just me - but in the end, you do it more often than others and that is just irritating.

I admit to the possibility that what you have just stated is true. I have made no attempt to compare the frequency of my use of ad hominem to your frequency or that of anyone else.

But I do not, as you do, make use of a magic wand to wave away my faults. My skin is not so thin that I am unable to own up to my errors, or to claim a wrong has, magically, become a "contribution".

Ok, you can own up to this one: I did not post an ad hominem you accused me of posting one. The question is what are you going to do about it now?

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You have held the bar very high for others - not just me - but in the end, you do it more often than others and that is just irritating.

I admit to the possibility that what you have just stated is true. I have made no attempt to compare the frequency of my use of ad hominem to your frequency or that of anyone else.

But I do not, as you do, make use of a magic wand to wave away my faults. My skin is not so thin that I am unable to own up to my errors, or to claim a wrong has, magically, become a "contribution".

Ok, you can own up to this one: I did not post an ad hominem you accused me of posting one. The question is what are you going to do about it now?

I did not"own up to this one". You are living in a dream world.

I realize that you will probably never agree that your curt use of the words "selfish and foolish" were in denigration of the person you were responding to. "Selfish" is not at attribute of "answer".

Until you can bring yourself to admit that, there is little sense in trying to discuss the matter with you.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I admit to the possibility that what you have just stated is true. I have made no attempt to compare the frequency of my use of ad hominem to your frequency or that of anyone else.

But I do not, as you do, make use of a magic wand to wave away my faults. My skin is not so thin that I am unable to own up to my errors, or to claim a wrong has, magically, become a "contribution".

Ok, you can own up to this one: I did not post an ad hominem you accused me of posting one. The question is what are you going to do about it now?

I did not"own up to this one". You are living in a dream world.

I realize that you will probably never agree that your curt use of the words "selfish and foolish" were in denigration of the person you were responding to. "Selfish" is not at attribute of "answer".

Until you can bring yourself to admit that, there is little sense in trying to discuss the matter with you.

I know you didn't own up to this one, or the other ones I pointed out to you, so you can own up to it, but you choose not to.

You still haven't got the difference between calling an act (an answer in this regard) something and calling a person something. The latter is not done, the first is common practice. The later is indeed denigration of the person, the first isn't. You can dis-a-proof of an act of someone, but you can still love a person.

One has a real problem raising children if one can't distinguish between the two. You are a reasonably intelligent man, so I have to ask myself why don't you want to see the difference?