I just realized I accidentally deleted some of these as I thought they were on a substantive thread. Apologies. If you put "rejected comment" at the top, I'll be sure to notice, but will try to do better on these. Thanks/sorry.
On July 31, 2009, you made a promise and -- for the last 15+ months -- you have repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly failed to honor it. Period, end of story.
If you ever do decide to honor your promise, I suggest you reread the question which you, yourself, described as“fair”.
Rejected comment from Albatross, who accuses me of being a "policy advisor" to the Heatland Institute, a false claim:
"Roger,
perhap you should take a deep breath for falsely accusing me of lying in a public forum. I did no such thing, I'd appreciate an apology from you. Or perhaps The Heartland Institute should not have your picture on page 10 on their list of expert advisors?
http://heartland.org/experts?page=10
So no my friend you are over the line.
Does this mean you are censoring me?"
If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it.
Albatross, you are not censored, but moved to the "Rejected Comments" thread. If you'd like a forum to behave in any manner you'd like, I'd suggest getting your own blog. Thanks!
I never said that you were a "policy advisor" Roger, and note you used quotes. Please quote me verbatim where and indicate where I said that you are a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute.
And even if I did say that, it does not make me a liar (please look up the definition), it would mean that I made an honest error. But I didn't.
Please state exactly what lies I allegedly made up about The Heartland Institute in my posts here.
Finally, what happened to my other comment that seems to have gottern you so upset? That has not appeared here, nor on the other thread.
My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.
"If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it."
You seem to be suggesting that you are not an "expert" for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an "expert", it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.
Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.
Yes, Heartland do need help, but I'm afraid that they may be well beyond help.
Albatross, sometimes comments are not approved immediately, such as when I am in a PHD comprehensive exam, as I have been for the past few hours. Comment approval will continue to be sporadic through the weekend, as usual. Thanks.
"This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:
"As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undweerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.
Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):
“Brian said… Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”
Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence."
Roger says @47, "I stopped trying to post responses at Romm's a long time ago after he simply deleted them."
Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying....just saying.
As for me allegedly being "abusive" Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.
Moreover, I was not "demanding your correspondence" as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:
"It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers."
Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.
9 comments:
Okay, I'll play your game this one time (only). You rejected the following comment. And, I'm betting you won't even post it here:
-34-Roger,
I have no intention of playing that game -- especially given your recent history of what passes moderation and what does not.
But, I would be delighted to see you replace your new entry with a post in the same location which honors the promise you made on 7/31/09.
If you ever do so, drop a comment in that last link and I will happily amend my post in accordance with the facts.
SBVOR
I just realized I accidentally deleted some of these as I thought they were on a substantive thread. Apologies. If you put "rejected comment" at the top, I'll be sure to notice, but will try to do better on these. Thanks/sorry.
Roger (Mon Nov 08, 06:38:00 PM MST),
The facts are very clear and very simple.
On July 31, 2009, you made a promise and -- for the last 15+ months -- you have repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly failed to honor it. Period, end of story.
If you ever do decide to honor your promise, I suggest you reread the question which you, yourself, described as “fair”.
Rejected comment from Albatross, who accuses me of being a "policy advisor" to the Heatland Institute, a false claim:
"Roger,
perhap you should take a deep breath for falsely accusing me of lying in a public forum.
I did no such thing, I'd appreciate an apology from you. Or perhaps The Heartland Institute should not have your picture on page 10 on their list of expert advisors?
http://heartland.org/experts?page=10
So no my friend you are over the line.
Does this mean you are censoring me?"
If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it.
Albatross, please follow up here/
Albatross, you are not censored, but moved to the "Rejected Comments" thread. If you'd like a forum to behave in any manner you'd like, I'd suggest getting your own blog. Thanks!
I never said that you were a "policy advisor" Roger, and note you used quotes. Please quote me verbatim where and indicate where I said that you are a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute.
And even if I did say that, it does not make me a liar (please look up the definition), it would mean that I made an honest error. But I didn't.
Please state exactly what lies I allegedly made up about The Heartland Institute in my posts here.
Finally, what happened to my other comment that seems to have gottern you so upset? That has not appeared here, nor on the other thread.
Thanks!
Hi Roger,
My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.
"If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it."
You seem to be suggesting that you are not an "expert" for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an "expert", it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.
Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.
Yes, Heartland do need help, but I'm afraid that they may be well beyond help.
Albatross, sometimes comments are not approved immediately, such as when I am in a PHD comprehensive exam, as I have been for the past few hours. Comment approval will continue to be sporadic through the weekend, as usual. Thanks.
More from Albatross:
"This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:
"As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undweerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.
Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):
“Brian said…
Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”
Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence."
Roger says @47, "I stopped trying to post responses at Romm's a long time ago after he simply deleted them."
Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying....just saying.
As for me allegedly being "abusive" Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.
Moreover, I was not "demanding your correspondence" as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:
"It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers."
Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.
Have a very nice day. "
Post a Comment