An inconvenient comment?

An exciting new blog aicomment.blogspot.com. However, I’m insulted that An Open Mind has got on their bad-boys list and I’m not. I thought I was notorious for rejecting inconvenient comments? Anyway, *I* suggest that you all try to make a comment on this post here, I’ll reject them all, and you can get me added to their list of blogs. Of course, if they reject your comments then we can start a blog for that.

[Comments here are now closed]

Comments

  1. #1 Magnus Westerstrand
    2009/12/18

    [Deleted - W]

  2. #2 carrot eater
    2009/12/18

    [Dismissed with contempt -W]

  3. #3 J
    2009/12/18

    Okay, I scanned through the latest ten posts over there. Past performance may be no guarantee etc. but I’d say that site isn’t going to the top of anyone’s must-read list.

    #10 has no inconvenient comments.

    #9 has no inconvenient comments.

    #8 has no inconvenient comments.

    #7 has no inconvenient comments.

    #6 has no inconvenient comments.

    #5 has no inconvenient comments.

    #4 has one inconvenient comment. Apparently someone submitted three rather silly comments to Tamino’s site and he declined to let them through moderation.

    #3 has no inconvenient comments.

    #2 has one inconvenient comment. In a RealClimate post, Eric Steig joked about both Hansen and Christie complaining about the peer review process (“If both feel the peer review process is biased against them, it must be working rather well.”) Somebody was apparently offended by this, and wrote a rather huffy two-line comment that doesn’t show up on RC.

    #1 has no inconvenient comments.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

  4. #4 Larry Johnson
    2009/12/18

    [That was good and I was tempeted to leave it, but rules is rulez -W]

  5. #5 guthrie
    2009/12/18

    [Ha ha yes I *did* delete it... -W]

  6. #6 Deech56
    2009/12/18

    After three comments on a thread at American Thinker I was banned and the comments deleted. I could try again and save the comments this time.

  7. #7 Eli Rabett
    2009/12/18

    [You are a Rude Boy. Definitely no swearing on this blog -W]

  8. #8 carrot eater
    2009/12/18

    [Deleted because I am a censoring propaganda machine, and my secret slush fund requires that I don't free the code, data and blog comments - W]

    Has anybody tried to pretend to be you before?

    [Noooo... cunning. Hmm, I think I'll leave this one up -W]

  9. #9 parrotsatemypiate
    2009/12/18

    [No porn please -W]

  10. #10 David B. Benson
    2009/12/18

    Ok, I’ll play.

    Delete away!

    [No. Shan't -W]

  11. #11 Phil Hays
    2009/12/18

    This is a test [Ha ha. I pass -W]

  12. #12 Hank Roberts
    2009/12/18

    HA! MADE YOU BLINK!

    [I can’t bear to remove it -W}

  13. #13 David B. Benson
    2009/12/18

    Hey!

    Rulez is rulez…

  14. #14 James Annan
    2009/12/18

    That’s not a new blog, it’s ancient (but a dismal failure in its intent). The web isn’t a write-only medium you know. Obviously members of the scienceblorgosphere don’t bother to actually keep up with the real world (“real”? shome mishtake shirley).

    [You're right, I did -W]

  15. #15 Hank Roberts
    2009/12/18

    Kill it! kill it!

  16. #16 dhogaza
    2009/12/18

    You don’t dare delete this. McIntyre and Watts know where you live …

    [Ah, but I deleted this bit. Or did I? -W]

  17. #17 dhogaza
    2009/12/18

    Thinking of Watts and his contributions to science …

    It will be a CO2-snowing day in Antarctica before you dare to delete this!

  18. #18 parrotsatemypiate
    2009/12/18

    My comment deleted from here was also deleted at Inconvenient Comment! It’s a conspiracy!

    [Right, that means you need to start you *own* blog to post nonsense on :-) -W]

  19. #19 Former Skeptic
    2009/12/18

    you will NOT delete this, you %&^$@^#$!!

  20. #20 Luke Warmer
    2009/12/19

    W- Read this then delete:

    “All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

    Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

    [W00t! I'm not deleting that. Thanks for letting me know - apparently this is causing something of a fuss. I may actually be obliged to read this trash. Incidentally - despite the attempt to link this to swifthack - as far as I can tell, none of my nefarious off-wiki collaboration came out in the mails -W]

  21. #21 Deep Climate
    2009/12/19

    #20

    This might help give some context for Terence Corcoran and the National Post.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/10/bali-2007-revisited/

  22. #22 Deep Climate
    2009/12/19

    Also this:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/08/in-the-beginning-the-national-post-terence-corcoran-and-tom-harris/

    Plus numerous others on National Post, mainly on Lorne Gunter

  23. #23 dhogaza
    2009/12/19

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.

    Damn, and here I thought he wrote 5,428 identical ones!

    [If you're interested, Solomon is just pulling stats from a tool like http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=William%20M.%20Connolley&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia I didn't create more that a small number of articles, of course -W]

  24. #24 Hank Roberts
    2009/12/19

    Ha! You not only deleted my creepy crawly worm post (after 14, before current 15) but you also removed the evidence of that, as you’ll remove this evidence of that evidence of that. But I can post more evidence ….

    oh, wait, I’m done.
    Rules of Go about ladders ought to apply.

  25. #25 crandles
    2009/12/19

    Hmm. Presumably it is inconvient to have someone post your inconsistency of

    [Yes, the shame is too much -W]

  26. #26 Steve Bloom
    2009/12/19

    Re #20: Luke, Solomon refers to things being wikidisappeared at William’s “hand,” but I happen to know that W., being of a poetic bent, prefers “mailed fist.”

    Re #24: That would be the ko rule, Hank. Ladders are allowed to run on to the bitter end.

  27. #27 dhogaza
    2009/12/19

    [I deleted myself -W]

  28. #28 Luke Warmer
    2009/12/19

    I suspected vanity might beat the delete!

    Re SuperFreakonomics, more “debunking”/harsh criticism of another non-climate bit:

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/the_all_else_eq_2.html

  29. #29 Hank Roberts
    2009/12/20

    Now, really, isn’t this vital information?

    Firefox not only supports blinks tag, but supports the old IE marquee tag and what is worse is you can use them both at the same time.


    What could be worse?

     

    http://www.dervishmoose.com/post.cfm/firefox-still-supports-the-blinking-blink-and-marquee-tag

    [Congratulations - you have now provoked me into shutting down comments on this thread :-) -W]

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!