[Slingbox]

Global warming is a joke to take focus off things that really matter...Kind of like the OJ trial..Were there more things important to put on that front page??...The answer is yes ..Its called a dumb down which the press does a pretty good job at it keeping us all entertained .hmm OJ...Orange juice.
It would be nice if there were no more fast food drive-ins though .Something about seeing 10 cars draped around a 99cent cheeseburger with engines running is kind of an odd thing.
For those that want to help Stop global warming you must pick up those signs and Picket the fast food Establishments to eliminate there drive up windows.Carbon monoxide gases would then be cut in half making a cleaner world to live in....Pretty funny huh

[gojeda]

...opinion of whom? Geophysicist? Climatologist? I'd like to research this a bit myself to see if we can find out if there is a majority...or not. But first I need to know the parameters. Who qualifies in your opinion?

Any scientist who is in the field of Earth sciences.

Seems to be a rather large gamble for any scientist that has doubts and hasn't yet ruled it out to do nothing but attack those that have made a decision.

I would imagine it would **** off a scientist to see what he considers to be "sloppy" or "incomplete" science being passed off as the real thing.

Peculiar as well that they assume those who’ve that have made up their minds that something needs to be done now, not later, are assumed to be extremists.

This isn't a whole lot different from the "extremists" characterizing the "non-believers" as some oil hungry, SUV driving ignoramus redneck...is it?

I think there may even be more than three groups...but whatever. I can understand a scientist wanting more data before joining a consensus but I don't understand one that mocks one group or their recommendations simply because it doesn't suit their political agenda.

I don't particularly understand the alarmism either, so I suppose that makes us even.

And I’d guess that motivating 6B+ people to do that may well require more than a few saying they see smoke as it doesn’t tend to get quite the attention than the guy screaming bloody “FIRE” now does it?

But, unfortunately, the alarmists aren't put in jail

You just said there is science that supports it. There is science that supports both sides of the debates, correct?

I addressed this before, and I will address it again.

There is a significant portion of those who DO believe that there is abnormal global warming due to human activity, but DO NOT buy into the alarmist view that the sky is falling. In short, if there is doubt about the contribution global warming by humans, there is an extra layer of doubt on top of that regarding whether or not human contribution is catastrophic.

Whatever. I see him for what he is – a leader attempting to lead 6B people by screaming “fire”.

We will agree to disagree then.

He’s got a lot of people across the globe talking about the issue and I fail to see why that is such a bad thing.

The approach is horrible and there are some indications that it is backfiring.

As much alarmism as you accuse him of there certainly hasn’t been much more than talk about the issue more so than action. Seems to me we need a few more screaming fire to truly get even nominal changes in place.

That is because more and more people are saying, "Wait a second here...." and not buying into the rhetoric lock stock and barrel.

So the rest of us 6B **** ants that don’t know any better should just shut the he!l up and wait for the elite scientist determine our fate then?

Wait a second. In one post, those on your side of the issue and in this very thread, were flaunting this enormous report by the IPCC that, supposedly, has the opinion of the majority of the world's scientists.

Now you are discounting scientists, calling them "elite" as if they are somehow detached from our everyday lives?

Get real - and stick to one story please.

You know full well that you’ll never get 100% of qualified scientists to agree on the matter one way or the other.

This is true, but the science is still sufficiently "all over the place" as to raise questions about what is actually happening...and what it will all eventually mean.

I’ve already explained this. Anything less would be white noise that resulted in no changes at all.

That is a seriously poor excuse to scaremonger humanity into believing the sky is about to fall.

Not to mention, of course, that scaremongering eventually has the opposite effect - as it desensitizes people and makes them apathetic.

Let’s be honest – scientists do not make the best leaders given they are inherently always questioning and reasoning (as they well should) rather than making tough decisions and getting 6B people to change.

Scientists do not make the best leaders, but they do make the best "fact finders" about the natural world around us.

I, for one, will listen to them first in regards to our natural world before I listen to a politician with a loaded agenda on the issue.

Great. I’ll simply ask you exactly what changes have been made to date that you would consider “falling over ourselves?”

The disaster that is Kyoto, for one.....

[Slingbox]

Some more dry humor or is it scientific fact that could be are answer???
If we do away with fast food all together the gases discharged from are bodies would be lowered to help stop global warming .We all could eat nuts and berries ,hold hands and sing 'We are the world' with algore.

P.S
My actions in this thread are a form of trolling and I will refrain from posting in this thread anymore...Just call me Dish boy for now

[moderateinny]

Any scientist who is in the field of Earth sciences.

OK then. I'll start digging. Of course, since there are likely thousands I am ont sure how we'll ever determine if there is a consensus.

I would imagine it would pis off a scientist to see what he considers to be "sloppy" or "incomplete" science passed off as the real thing.

I'm sure the scientist you are accusing of being "sloppy" would be equally pissed off and claim you're being influenced more so by political party affiliation than your integrity as a member of the scientific community. Particularily when you aren't quite sure what the science says about it all just yet.

This isn't a whole lot different from the "extremists" characterizing the "non-believers" as some oil hungry, SUV driving ignoramus redneck...is it?

I've not said that. At least not within the context of our little conversation here.

I addressed this before, and I will address it again.

There is a significant portion of those who DO believe that there is abnormal global warming due to human activity, but DO NOT buy into the alarmist view that the sky is falling.

I guess I'm left wondering what those that DO believe but aren't yet convinced that he sky is falling loses by allowing humans to change their behavior? Who cares how they get motivated to do so? Isn't it generally accepted that lowering our carbon output isn't a bad thing?

Secondly, it could be argued that such scientists, due to their political leanings, are economic chicken-littles that are afraid the sky will fall if changes are made. Most noteable that they are scientists, not economist, and hardly in a position to exclaim the economic sky will fall when changes are made to reduce human emissions of CO2.

The approach is horrible.

Seems to be working. People are talking about it, aren't they? But I guess here to, we will agree to disagree.

That is because more and more people are saying, "Wait a second here...." and not buying into the rhetoric lock stock and barrel.

More and more people? Like right-wing pundits? The world as a majority have more concerns with global warming than do the minority of those economic chicken littles from my vantage point.

Wait a second. In one post, those on your side of the issue and in this very thread, were flaunting this enormous report by the IPCC that, supposedly, has the opinion of the majority of the world's scientists.

Where did I flaunt the IPCC report?

Now you are discounting scientists, calling them "elite" as if they are somehow detached from our everyday lifes?

I'm not necessarily calling them all elites - just the ones that feel that the entire planet should wait and allow the scientists to, "...be the ones to say, without equivocation" when in fact they likely will never reach consensus at all.

That is a seriously poor excuse to scaremonger humanity into believing the sky is about to fall.

Scaremonger? Yes I see them all running in the streets now and rioting over the sky falling.

I think your position is a seriously poor excuse to do nothing for fear of the economic sky falling.

Not to mention that scaremongering eventually has the opposite effect - as it desensitizes people and makes them apathetic.

Seems to have barely made the radar screen in the collective minds of all 6B from where I stand. The Chinese certainly don't seem to care when I go to Shenzhen. It would seem we have a long way to go before people are desensitized.

Scientists do not make the best leaders, but they do make the best "fact finders" about the world around us.

Maybe so. As long as they remain objective.

I, for one, will listen to them first in regards to our natural world before I listen to a politician with a loaded agenda on the issue.

Maybe we need more scientists to become politicians?

The disaster that is Kyoto, for one.....

The disaster? I suppose that could be another whole thead, but I find your labeling of Kyoto to be more politically charged and rhetorical than quantifiably "disasterous".

[cellmatrix]

Interesting article I stumbled upon today. I did not realize how active the petroleum industry has been in trying to manipulate public opinion regarding global warming but they have been very active indeed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975...wsweek/page/0/

[Toby]

That's a couple months old. I think Samuelson's 'response' (from the subsequent issue and linked on that page) is probably more measured.

[lifes2short]

Cellmatrix - Mind sharing your thoughts about An inconvenient truth as far as the veracity of its scientific basis, pro or con, is concerned? Not trying to create a dustup with any of the world-is-flat folks, and you may very well have posted about this back when the film was released, but I'd genuinely like to know your thoughts.

[cellmatrix]

The movie was given 5 stars for accuracy by top climate scientists questioned about the movie, who only had minor disagreements on a few specific points.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ce-truth_x.htm

In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909

[cellmatrix]

That's a couple months old. I think Samuelson's 'response' (from the subsequent issue and linked on that page) is probably more measured.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. But still I wonder to what extent public opinion is being manipulated on this issue by industries who stand to gain from inaction on global warming. I think its a valid point to consider.

[whmurray]

Define consensus...........

Consensus: 1. general agreement, 2. unamitiy, 3. solidarity in sentiment and belief, 4. the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned.

Certainly by definitions 2, 3, and 4, consensus is a difficult test to meet.

Quakers decide all meeting business by the "sense of meeting," which they do sometimes distinguish from consensus. However, my understanding of their process is that if agreement cannot be reached, they consider that the question may not be appropriately stated. They then attempt to restate the question until they reach a statement on which they can agree.

The problem with this thread from the beginning has been the statement of the question: "Global Warming, True/False, Blame?" How are we ever to reach any agreement, useful or otherwise, on such a question? No skilled debate organizer would ever put such a question. The result here has been general assault with gauntlets, much more heat than light.

Perhaps we should give some thought to a more useful statement of the question. It might be useful if the statement did not require consensus, much less certainty, in order to reach appropriate policy, not to say, lead to useful action. Without agreeing on the urgency or severity of the problem, certainly without fixing "blame," we might still be able to agree on a policy.

One aphorism that I have found useful says that given two statements of a problem, I prefer the one that lends itself to a solution; given two solutions, I prefer the one that is in my own hands.

[lifes2short]

While the movie was given 5 stars for accuracy by top climate scientists questioned about the movie, there were disagreements on a few specific points.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ce-truth_x.htm

In contrast, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, at the time chaired by Republican Senator Jim Inhofe issued a press release criticizing this article. Inhofe's statement that "global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" appears in the film.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem....=rep&id=257909

Having read through some of this really long thread, I presumed this area was close to you either professionally or at the very least of personal interest. So, if you have an opinion on the data the film uses as its basis, that's actually what I was looking for.

The article you posted is very fairly written, and does highlight a couple of very trivial inaccuracies which don't change the bottom-line held by the scientific community though. Thanks.

[moderateinny]

Perhaps we should give some thought to a more useful statement of the question. It might be useful if the statement did not require consensus, much less certainty, in order to reach appropriate policy, not to say, lead to useful action. Without agreeing on the urgency or severity of the problem, certainly without fixing "blame," we might still be able to agree on a policy.

Well you should know that my question was more a rhetorical one knowing full well the scientific community would never be able to reach consensus. I didn't mean a literal definition, but thats OK.

I agree that trying to move things forward to agree on policy would be more productive. I think there is ample enough evidence and enough concern by many scientists (note the absence of the word majority) to put policies in place that begin to reduce our carbon output. But you must realize that their are very powerful forces behind this whole "cast doubt" on global warming topic, including a number of scientists on their payroll to help them offer "scientific" research of their own that counters more main stream findings by the scientific community at large.

In any event, I think hobbes posted some specifics a few months ago to move forward in a responsible manner with some suggested steps: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...postcount=1146

I wouldn't mind resuming the discussion around his ideas as a way to get things back on track.

[gojeda]

OK then. I'll start digging. Of course, since there are likely thousands I am ont sure how we'll ever determine if there is a consensus.

Well the claim of consensus has been made by a few in this thread. Perhaps you should ask those to made the claim.

I guess I'm left wondering what those that DO believe but aren't yet convinced that he sky is falling loses by allowing humans to change their behavior? Who cares how they get motivated to do so?

This is sort of like saying that slavery was a good thing because it made the South agriculturally vibrant.

Of course it is important "how" people get motivated. Motivation by fear might work in the short term, but it is never a long term solution.

Secondly, it could be argued that such scientists, due to their political leanings, are economic chicken-littles that are afraid the sky will fall if changes are made. Most noteable that they are scientists, not economist, and hardly in a position to exclaim the economic sky will fall when changes are made to reduce human emissions of CO2.

No no, the platform of fear foisted by Algore and company go well beyond there mere economic sense of the word. They are talking about how people are going to starve because there will not be enough food to go around, how cities are going to wiped off the map, super hurricanes, and a whole litany of other ecological disasters, they say, await us - because of what WE have done.

More and more people? Like right-wing pundits? The world as a majority have more concerns with global warming than do the minority of those economic chicken littles from my vantage point.

I am not claiming a majority (unlike others). I am seeing, however, an increasing dialogue that says that, perhaps, the doom and gloomers are full of ****.

Where did I flaunt the IPCC report?

Others have...

I'm not necessarily calling them all elites - just the ones that feel that the entire planet should wait and allow the scientists to, "...be the ones to say, without equivocation" when in fact they likely will never reach consensus at all.

Well, there are people out there who think we have not landed on the Moon either, but I think it is safe to say that there is the "consensus" that man did, in fact, get there.

That is a bit of hyperbole, but it touches on the fact that there is such thing as consensus in science on a whole host of issues. We are not nearly there yet with regards to global warming.

Scaremonger?

Did you watch Algore's propaganda flick?

I think your position is a seriously poor excuse to do nothing for fear of the economic sky falling.

I am not sure why you are on this "economic" kick, and I am not sure who ever said to do "nothing", but I am certainly not an alarmist, a fearmonger, or a reactionary.

Seems to have barely made the radar screen in the collective minds of all 6B from where I stand. The Chinese certainly don't seem to care when I go to Shenzhen. It would seem we have a long way to go before people are desensitized.

Preaching from the pulpit of fear does eventually desensitize people. The process may or may not be a quick one, but the outcome is almost always the same.

Whereas 5 years ago there was virtually no talk questioning the notion about abnormal global warming and its effect, now there, at least, the genesis of a healthy debate on the issue.

[moderateinny]

This is sort of like saying that slavery was a good thing because it made the South agriculturally vibrant.

Yea...thats exactly that it is sort of like.

Of course it is important "how" people get motivated. Motivation by fear might work in the short term, but it is never a long term solution.

Well that is your opinion and you're sticking to it.

The last time I checked, fear could be a pretty good motivator just as easily as it could be a pretty good paralyzer. For instance, fear motivated lots of guys around me everyday to survive in combat. You did what you had to do to save your a$$ and your buddies. Anybody that said they were fearless were just plain full of ****. Conversely, a nation may have the kind of fear that can paralyze itself - hence FDR's famous quote, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

So which context are you using the term "fear?"

No no, the platform of fear foisted by Algore and company go well beyond there mere economic sense of the word. They are talking about how people are going to starve because there will not be enough food to go around, how cities are going to wiped off the map, super hurricanes, and a whole litany of other ecological disasters, they say, await us - because of what WE have done.

Again, people are talking about it aren't they? Moreover, there is at least some data and opinions by some scientists that think things could get that bad. Or are you saying that Al Gore made this all up?

I am not claiming a majority (unlike others). I am seeing, however, an increasing dialogue that says that, perhaps, the doom and gloomers are full of ****.

Dialogue by whom? The oil industry paid shills calling themselves "scientists?" Or the right-wing pundits who desparately gobble up the "research" provided by the oil industry or "annonymous donors" so that they can continue to create FUD about all the "fear mongering" being perpetrated on the people?

Did you watch Algore's propaganda flick?

I saw Al Gore's oscar winning movie that got the whole world talking about global warming, yes. I also saw that small portions of it were not true but much of it was true. What is your point?

I am not sure why you are on this "economic" kick, and I am not sure who ever said to do "nothing", but I am certainly not an alarmist, a fearmonger, or a reactionary.

I know exactly what you are and what you do and frankly its very disappointing. But whatever floats your boat...

Preaching from the pulpit of fear does eventually desensitize people. The process may or may not be a quick one, but the outcome is almost always the same.

Again context...what is the outcome going to be? Didn't fear work quite well to motivate us during the cold war? Wasn't it "fear" being used by Reagan to gain support of the American people to finish off the cold war? This is well before your time but I well remember the air raid drills in my school as a young boy for "fear" of the commies nuking our little elementary school.

Whereas 5 years ago there was virtually no talk questioning the notion about abnormal global warming and its effect, now there, at least, the genesis of a healthy debate on the issue.

So after all that do we agree that we're talking about it and the only differences are how we got to this point and how we'll move forward? I'll take that.

[gojeda]

Yea...thats exactly that it is sort of like.

Good, you now know how ridiculous is the assertion that scaring people is a good thing.

So which context are you using the term "fear?"

I am alluding to the component of fear in Gore and Co.'s message, that if we don't do this or that, we will get super hurricanes, floods, famines, pestilence.....aside from the usual predicitons of some global economic disaster.

That is a dishonest message IMO.

Again, people are talking about it aren't they? Moreover, there is at least some data and opinions by some scientists that think things could get that bad. Or are you saying that Al Gore made this all up?

I am saying Algore has taken a position that is not particularly supported by science. His agenda is political, personal, and financially driven....and I think that has to be considered when hearing his message.

Dialogue by whom? The oil industry paid shills calling themselves "scientists?"
Or the right-wing pundits who desparately gobble up the "research" provided by the oil industry or "annonymous donors" so that they can continue to create FUD about all the "fear mongering" being perpetrated on the people?

I don't think you want to make the charge of calling people a "shill" when those on your side of the issue can be said to be shills themselves.

I saw Al Gore's oscar winning movie that got the whole world talking about global warming, yes. I also saw that small portions of it were not true but much of it was true. What is your point?

Funny, those "small portions" have caused the British, for example, to call the film "politically biased" and to show a disclaimer as such when being shown in schools.

I know exactly what you are and what you do and frankly its very disappointing. But whatever floats your boat...

boooooring.....

Again context...what is the outcome going to be? Didn't fear work quite well to motivate us during the cold war? Wasn't it "fear" being used by Reagan to gain support of the American people to finish off the cold war? This is well before your time but I well remember the air raid drills in my school as a young boy for "fear" of the commies nuking our little elementary school.

Kind of a ridiculous comparison, don't you think?

I mean, there was no real mystery with what would be the reprocussions of a nuclear attack.

Compare and contrast with the large degree of uncertainty with regards to the whole greenhouse gas debate, and I think the attempt to draw a correlation is a shaky one at best.

No, fear was not a good thing during the Cold War because while it probably drove us to protect ourselves, it was also fear that propagated the arms race as well.

So after all that do we agree that we're talking about it and the only differences are how we got to this point and how we'll move forward? I'll take that.

Talking about it, and scaring people for no apparent reason, are two different things.

[lifes2short]

I saw Al Gore's oscar winning movie that got the whole world talking about global warming, yes. I also saw that small portions of it were not true but much of it was true. What is your point?

Isn't this the only real elephant in the room? However, I've not yet seen anyone present substantive argument drawn from nonpartisan sources which deflates the premise or data details of the film in any substantial way. Bicker over the inclusion of Katrina and its human toll, as an example, but this says nothing to the merit and veracity of the data specifics. An intelligent, respectful discussion on this area is sorely needed. Outside of that discussion, what else is there besides politics as usual at this point?

[moderateinny]

I am alluding to the component of fear in Gore and Co.'s message, that if we don't do this or that, we will get super hurricanes, floods, famines, pestilence.....aside from the usual predicitons of some global economic disaster.

That is a dishonest message IMO.

Is it more dishonest than oil company paid FUD?

I am saying Algore has taken a position that is not particularly supported by science. His agenda is political, personal, and financially driven....and I think that has to be considered when hearing his message.

It really doesn't have to be considered. People are talking about global warming - not running in the streets or building bunkers for christs sake.

I don't think you want to make the charge of calling people a "shill" when those on your side of the issue can be said to be shills themselves.

Well, I would never post personally identifiable information about you as I believe that the forum works best as one whereby anonymity is maintained. But I don't think there is anything wrong with knowing general backgrounds, etc. Mine is in high-tech and I travel quite a lot to all parts of the world to conduct business for my company that makes/sells high-tech parts and equipment. I have engineers in Silicon Valley and are based in NY. My circle of friends are largely Republicans with a few Libertarians and Democrats mixed within.

Now perhaps shill is a big of a strong word so I apologize. But you and I both know you work for the oil industry helping map ocean floors for places to drill oil, correct? You've also interned at large oil companies as well, haven't you? Now I think you're a very very bright young man but you are someone that has been working in and around oil companies for quite some time as a geophysicist. So while I respect your credentials I also cannot help but view your opinions through the "oil industry insider" prism.

Funny, those "small portions" have caused the British, for example, to call the film "politically biased" and to show a disclaimer as such when being shown in schools.

Funny, I was just in the UK and while the court found 9 errors in the movie it was largely upheld as one based on fact. To the extent I thought they will still show it in the schools, but with a disclaimer. If it were "propaganda" I am reasonbly sure the Brits would not allow it to be shown in the schools at all. I guess it depends on your vantage point, which again, we now all know yours is pretty firmly well planted behind the desk at an oil company.

Kind of a ridiculous comparison, don't you think?

I mean, there was no real mystery with what would be the reprocussions of a nuclear attack.

I suppose if you're convinced that the consequences of inaction would not be as catastrophic as a nuclear war you would think its ridiculous. But then if you felt that way I'd think you'd hardly be someone willing to sincerely consider the other side of the argument since you've obviously already made up your mind. Fortunately many others have not made up their mind at all. And many others needed to be motivated to help determine a path forward - some of those in which may only be motivated by fear to get them off their collective a$$es to at least examine the issue.

No, fear was not a good thing during the Cold War because while it probably drove us to protect ourselves, it was also fear that propagated the arms race as well.

The cold war was won because of the arms race. What in the world are you talking about? It left the soviet economy in tatters. I thought you were a Reagan Republican?

Talking about it, and scaring people for no apparent reason, are two different things.

So is creating FUD by telling them to "please go about your business...do not look at the man behind the curtain" to delay the (hopefully) inevitable move away from fossil fuels.

[Toby]

I believe that the forum works best as one whereby anonymity is maintained.

I disagree with this concept. While I'm not going to post my SSN, I think anonymity is overrated and even harmful in some ways to productive discussion.

[moderateinny]

I disagree with this concept. While I'm not going to post my SSN, I think anonymity is overrated and even harmful in some ways to productive discussion.

I can understand. A former company I was associated with went through these discussions and while there are many bad things that come with anonymity we ultimately decided that it may attract those that would never posts to post, as well as provide for reasonable protections against the minority of misguided folks that may resort to emailing, phoning, or even worse, paying a visit to those they disagreed with (again...like that Chupa wacko that got banned...he was calling the one guy at work if I recall).

I don't mean to "out" gojeda nor do I wish him harm in any way. I actually respect him quite a bit as I perceive his higher education required unusually hard work against difficult circumstances for someone like him. So I'd actually prefer he remains annonymous for his own sake. I will not say how I know of him, other than I just do. But he can rest easy knowing I'm not hunting him down or anything like that. His background and the industry (you'll note I was quite guarded about specifics) he works in are worth knowing about though and hopefuly provides a better perspective as to where he is coming from.

Of course, I could be all wet too. Who knows? Such is the bane of an anonymous forum.

[Toby]

I can understand. A former company I was associated with went through these discussions and while there are many bad things that come with anonymity we ultimately decided that it may attract those that would never posts to post, as well as provide for reasonable protections against the minority of misguided folks that may resort to emailing, phoning, or even worse, paying a visit to those they disagreed with (again...like that Chupa wacko that got banned...he was calling the one guy at work if I recall).

While it may attract some to post that would not otherwise, it also embiggens those that would not be nearly so bold were they less anonymous.

I don't mean to "out" gojeda nor do I wish him harm in any way. I actually respect him quite a bit as I perceive his higher education required unusually hard work against difficult circumstances for someone like him. So I'd actually prefer he remains annonymous for his own sake. I will not say how I know of him, other than I just do. But he can rest easy knowing I'm not hunting him down or anything like that. His background and the industry (you'll note I was quite guarded about specifics) he works in are worth knowing about though and hopefuly provides a better perspective as to where he is coming from.

Sorry, but this sort of internet cloak and dagger stuff is exactly why it's harmful. You think you know some privileged information about him. You won't say how. You can't be totally sure you do. The handle may or may not be truly unique.

Of course, I could be all wet too. Who knows? Such is the bane of an anonymous forum.

Exactly why I think it's overrated and abandoned most pretexts of anonymity long ago. In some ways it puts me at a disadvantage over the 'anonymous' ones, but it's the principle of the thing.