So Bob's forum is simply an echo chamber.

So as a test, I filed a response in one of the threads in Blazer Bob's forum that challenged the veracity of his post re AGW. I was immediately moderated from the thread. It does confirm that his entire intent is to create an echo chamber for his personal opinions, and prevent any honest dialogue from occurring.

I believe that I will stay in the Courthouse, where even though it may get rude, it at least is honest.

Like I said... A little "echo chamber"...."Where never is heard a discouraging word...(And the skies are not cloudy all daaaaaay.....)"

Well, it gives them a place to run and hide and not have to do anything but agree with each other...

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, pure conservative BS. It is typical that conservatives here will accept unsupported conclusions on a right wing blog by a geologist on the payroll of Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, particularly when those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists.

Yeah, how very respectful. Try expressing yourself without being a jerk and it'll probably stay put.

I don't see anything disrespectful... But then, when you don't want to hear any truth, I can see where you'd have a problem.

I thought you got moved because you went into personal attacks/the blame game instead of actually talking about the issue. The same thing has happened to me.

Nobody that matters wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, pure conservative BS. It is typical that conservatives here will accept unsupported conclusions on a right wing blog by a geologist on the payroll of Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, particularly when those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists.

Yeah, how very respectful. Try expressing yourself without being a jerk and it'll probably stay put.

Point out a single thing that was not true. So in Bob's World, it is ok to lie and spread dishonesty as long as do it in a tone that Bob agrees with. What was there that was being a "jerk"? Suggesting that quoting dishonest lies from a right wing blog is "BS"? I will stick with honesty instead.

FredHayek wrote: I thought you got moved because you went into personal attacks/the blame game instead of actually talking about the issue. The same thing has happened to me.

Where did I make a personal attack or blamed someone else? I merely pointed out that in my personal opinon, the cut and paste quote was BS because it was dishonest lies from a right wing blog. If you don't agree with the contents of a post, then don't post it. Otherwise, it is a given that by directly posting a cut and paste without any commentary about it's lack of truth, then you agree with it. That I directly challenged the veracity of the post caused my post to be moderated.

I am fine with the arrangement, but don't pretend it is anything but an echo chamber.

Something the Dog should have Said wrote: those conclusions have been clearly refuted by peer reviewed climatologists. Those peers said the the conclusions were invalid because...

There. I fixed it for you. Post it and I bet it stays put. Get rid of the combat gear used to smash anything you think is conservative, and try addressing the subject of the post. You can get your point across without going stright into a partisan war.

LadyJazzer wrote: I don't see anything disrespectful...

That doesn't surprise me at all.

It shouldn't... Pointing out lies and hypocrisy will do it every time.

But you'd better scamper back to your echo-chamber quick!; lest you have to actually back it up...