An inconvenient comment?

[Deleted - W]

[Dismissed with contempt -W]

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.

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

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

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.

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

[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]

[No porn please -W]

Ok, I'll play.

Delete away!

[No. Shan't -W]

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

HA! MADE YOU BLINK!

[I can't bear to remove it -W}

Hey!

Rulez is rulez...

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]

Kill it! kill it!

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

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

Thinking of Watts and his contributions to science ...

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

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]

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

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 didnât like the subject of a certain article, he removed it â 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 â over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolleyâs global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipediaâs 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/l…

[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]

#20

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

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

Also this:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/08/in-the-beginning-the-national-post-te…

Plus numerous others on National Post, mainly on Lorne Gunter

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.%20Con… I didn't create more that a small number of articles, of course -W]

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.

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

[Yes, the shame is too much -W]

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.

[I deleted myself -W]

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…

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-blinkin…

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