Thursday, July 18, 2013

The age cohort of Catallaxy participants speaks....


(I noticed today a large number of people at Catallaxy self identifying as being well over the half century.  Older, but not wiser.   Amongst other great highlights there lately, a bunch of men,  over 60 mostly I suspect, puzzling about why, oh why, do skeptic associations tend to believe in AGW, you know, as if it is real.   Clueless.)

6 comments:

John said...

It has been ages so I tried posting there last night. Still banned, Sincs must really hate me. Then again they hate the greater majority of the human race.

Steve said...

It's only worth going there to be appalled and tell them they're wrong.

Of course, I'm over the half century myself by a couple of years, yet I don't think I have fossilised views like most there.

John said...

Davidson has destroyed the place. Soon knew how to run a forum, Davidson just wants a bunch of chooks that he feels a desperate need to protect from foxes. Coward.

nottrampis said...

Davidson is just like goebbels.

He deliberately feeds the fools lies to keep up the rage.

you could write an article every day on the inaccurate tripe that comes out of there

Steve said...

I see Sinclair yesterday did a lot of analysis of fringe benefit tax figures to try to prove something, yet admitting at the end that it might not reflect reality because he couldn't be sure of the ATO stats he was using. A few people in thread have confirmed this is correct - his analysis is useless.

About as good as his mathturbation exercises with the temperature record.

And for crying out loud - will someone tell Lizzie no one cares about the blokes she's slept with, and setting up her own blogger account is dead easy?

John said...

When the FBT was first introduced the business community said it would finish restaurants, cars, conference facilities. Just like they said paid sick leave, superannuation ... .

Davidson's thinking is so predictable, he's an ambi-thinker, he can only think to the Extreme Right. He is like so many psychologists who will use statistics to prove their pet biases and often do so in a dishonest fashion.