[QUOTE=cheesehead;356779]Do you even understand the concept and value of trust, or is it just that you want not to be trusted by anyone who's familiar with your deception habit because you get such a kick out of deceiving all the other folks?[/QUOTE]

If I May... To feed back into this feedback loop...

I trust Ernst more than I do you for sane and sound argument.

Having said that, I find neither of you completely sound nor sane. (Just for the short of humor, that's meant to be funny.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356779](* sigh *) I was doing you the favor of supposing (i.e., [I]trusting[/I]) that you'd accidentally omitted or substituted a word or words, not that you were being deliberately tricky.

So now, I guess we all need to assume that any word of what you post (or omit) may be part of an attempted deception of readers. We need to carefully scrutinize your every message -- every line, every word -- if we want not to be deceived by you.

Your habitual deceptions corrode trust -- are you proud of that?[/QUOTE]

He's funny. I like it. Sorry you didn't get the joke. I don't agree that witticisms erode trust - and I don't agree that witticisms are deceptions. I think that humorlessness erodes enjoyment.

PS. Ernst didn't leave a word out, like you supposed. The headline writer left a work out. Ernst just responded to the headline as written. Although explaining jokes gets tiresome for everybody very rapidly - how about a simple apology for missing the joke and we all move on?

[QUOTE=wblipp;356787]I don't agree that witticisms erode trust[/QUOTE]... nor do I. I didn't claim that witticisms erode trust.

[quote]and I don't agree that witticisms are deceptions.[/quote]... nor do I. I didn't claim that witticisms are deceptions.

It was Ernst's previous history of deception that eroded trust. I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer.

[quote]PS. Ernst didn't leave a word out,[/quote]No, he didn't.

[quote]like you supposed.[/quote]"Climate deniers" is a frequent headline-abbreviation (in other forums with a climate theme) for "global warming deniers" or "anthropogenic global warming deniers". I"m accustomed to seeing that, so I casually treated Ernst's "deny the existence of climate" as though it were similar. (Later, I sloppily described that treatment as "accidentally omitted or substituted a word or words" instead of "reworded a frequent headline abbreviation" -- which made things worse.)

I gave Ernst's first sentence ("Refusing to publish letters from wackos who deny the existence of climate does seem a rather sensible thing to do.") little importance. I shouldn't even have quoted it in my post #1045, because my response was solely to his second sentence ("Does that even need an official statement of policy?").

I chose to respond to "need an official statement of policy" with a statement of why the LA Times statement needed publishing, never imagining the chain of misunderstandings that could ensue.

[quote]Although explaining jokes gets tiresome for everybody very rapidly[/quote]Not quite as tiresome as composing (or reading!) a third response to explain the misunderstandings that resulted when I didn't take time to be clear when I posted my first and second responses.

[quote]how about a simple apology for missing the joke and we all move on?[/quote]I'm sorry I missed the joke (though I guess I should be flattered by the extent of concern that this oversight needed to be brought to my attention in order to ensure that I hadn't missed something of importance to me). I'm sorry I quoted a sentence to which my response did not pertain. I'm sorry I responded to Ernst's response to a preceding response. I'm sorry I was ever "in a hurry". I'm sorry I didn't make my posts clear enough so as not to easily allow misunderstandings. I'm sorry it takes so many words to explain my previous posts and correct misunderstandings. I apologize for every mistake I've ever made in the mersenneforum.org forum. Q.E.D. (You didn't forbid appending other apologies to the simple one.)

Richard, it's OK. No matter how we chide each other and jostle to see who can place or catch a witticism, we are talking about issues we care about with people whose opinions matter to us (modulo quibbles).

It's all good. We have a long slide before we are standing members of the House Science Committee declaiming that "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell."

As long as we don't go as far around the bend as those gummint hacks do, then quibbles, banter and minor bickering is a verbal tag game to see who is paying attention and to score mock points for minor ribbing while we also present information and colorful baubles for each other to turn over and examine.

I'm sorry too about things along the way and will be sorry for things in the future (if the past is any guide).

You have not lost my respect -- not even close. Regards, Ross.

To add to Richard's last remarks: my apologies to all concerned for my misinterpretion the situation too. I [I]really[/I] got it wrong this time.

Ross: I had a laugh at your phrase in parentheses "modulo quibbles" (and appreciated the rest of your post and other people's posts too).

It's always hard to know at what point quibbles stop adding to the atmosphere and humour and start to be destructive. I can't get my head around it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;356838]
It's always hard to know at what point quibbles stop adding to the atmosphere and humour and start to be destructive. I can't get my head around it.[/QUOTE]
Good. The main point of quibbles and word play, IMAO, is to get the reader to think about the words as written and what they might mean. The boundary should be malleable because it is to the benefit of both parties.

See the Hippy Bimbo thread for a recent example where some deliberate malapropisms led to an educational experience.

I'm really glad I spent yesterday afternoon at a winetasting in the Saratoga foothills, otherwise I would likely have checked in here and gotten thoroughly depressed as a result.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;356816]It was Ernst's previous history of deception that eroded trust.[/QUOTE]
Given that you apparently are unable to distinguish between both humorous wordplay and legitimate differences on matters of opinion and malicious deception and further assume-the-latter-as-default when in doubt, no wonder you feel yourself as being the victim of "an evil campaign of deception".

[QUOTE]I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer.[/QUOTE]
Given your long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions, may I suggest "Remaining silent when not 100% sure about poster intent" as a better strategy than repeatedly blowing up threads and forcing others to gently and patiently lead you by the hand through your misapprehensions?

When one can no longer safely make a mild play on words in the bloody Soap Box subforum, the inmates really are running the asylum. I understand now why folks like Alex and George no longer venture near this nuthouse (Alex the forum as a whole, George the Soapbox).

Ernst's posting above has concerned me enough to start a [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18722"]new thread[/URL] about our discussions on mersenneforum.org and especially here in the soap box. If the supermods have no objection, perhaps the above chain of discussion plus other issues about soap box discussion in general could transfer to that new thread? And this thread can then return to matters concerning Global Warming and its scientific evidence?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;356879]Given that you apparently are unable to distinguish between both humorous wordplay and legitimate differences on matters of opinion and malicious deception[/QUOTE]Folks,

A skilled verbal manipulator like Ernst who is afraid of my public exposures of his deceptions will try and try and try again to fool you into mistrusting his critic. It doesn't bother him to lie to you.

Always remember to check the evidence versus what Ernst claims.

[quote]Given your long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions, may I suggest "Remaining silent when not 100% sure about poster intent" as a better strategy than repeatedly blowing up threads and forcing others to gently and patiently lead you by the hand through your misapprehensions?[/quote]Folks,

Notice the smoothness of Ernst's manipulations, the little misdirections and exaggerations he slips in when posting hostilely about me.

I wrote "I do apologize for being "in a hurry" when composing and editing that post, and not being clearer". Ernst claims that I have difficulty at the "above distinctions". What distinctions? Distinctions between being in a hurry and not being clearer? I have no trouble with distinguishing that those are different.

See? Ernst hopes you won't think too much about what he says, [I]that you won't stop to figure out that "above distinctions" doesn't really apply to my sentence that he quoted[/I], that you'll just accept his assertion of "long-established history of difficulty at the above distinctions" as being a factually correct indication that I ... something-negative (what? -- Maybe you should ask Ernst what he means. Don't be surprised if he gives an evasive response.).

Character assassination proceeds in little deceptive bits and pieces. Evidence is what distinguishes truth from fiction. I urge you to check the evidence rather than accepting Ernst's assertions as fact.

You're always welcome to check the evidence about what I post, too. After a while, you'll notice a systematic difference between what I post about Ernst and what Ernst posts about me.

[U]Ernst doesn't (because he can't) point out where I try to deceive you.[/U]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/only-tea-party-members-believe-climate-change-is-not-happening-new-pew-poll-finds/[/url]

Motivated by the recent massive cold weather pattern over most of the central & eastern US, I did a little digging yesterday into historical temperature extremes for the area in which I grew up, Akron OH. Here are the recorded extremes for each day in January stretching back around 150 years, with each column having a "years before present" annotation I added. I wanted to discern whether there was any appreciable skew in the occurrence pattern of record lows and highs. Here are the data:
[code] Historical Temperature Extremes
Jan Max YBP Min YBP
01 63 °F (1985) 29 -05 °F (1968) 46
02 63 °F (2000) 14 -04 °F (1979) 35
03 60 °F (1897) 117 -06 °F (1979) 35
04 64 °F (1997) 17 -06 °F (1981) 33
05 64 °F (1997) 17 -10 °F (1904) 110
06 65 °F (1946) 68 -10 °F (2014) 0
07 64 °F (2008) 6 -11 °F (2014) 0
08 64 °F (2008) 6 -10 °F (1942) 72
09 63 °F (1946) 68 -06 °F (1970) 44
10 58 °F (1975) 39 -10 °F (1982) 32
11 63 °F (1890) 124 -09 °F (1979) 35
12 64 °F (1916) 98 -07 °F (1918) 96
13 68 °F (2005) 9 -13 °F (1912) 102
14 68 °F (1932) 82 -05 °F (1964) 50
15 63 °F (1932) 82 -11 °F (1972) 42
16 55 °F (1953) 61 -16 °F (1982) 32
17 59 °F (1952) 62 -22 °F (1982) 32
18 63 °F (1929) 85 -22 °F (1994) 20
19 68 °F (1907) 107 -25 °F (1994) 20
20 62 °F (1974) 40 -24 °F (1985) 29
21 69 °F (1906) 108 -24 °F (1985) 29
22 72 °F (1906) 108 -13 °F (1936) 78
23 73 °F (1906) 108 -15 °F (1963) 51
24 65 °F (1909) 105 -21 °F (1963) 51
25 70 °F (1950) 64 -14 °F (1897) 117
26 66 °F (1950) 64 -11 °F (1897) 117
27 67 °F (1916) 98 -09 °F (1936) 78
28 60 °F (2002) 12 -13 °F (1977) 37
29 64 °F (1975) 39 -13 °F (1977) 37
30 66 °F (2013) 1 -06 °F (1965) 49
31 62 °F (2002) 12 -05 °F (1948) 66

Avg YPB (Max) = 59.7
Avg YPB (Min) = 50.8[/code]
On average, the record low occurrences are nearly a decade more recent than the highs. Interesting.

Now clearly the 2 recent new record lows have reduced the YBP average for the low column, so I also dug up the years in which the previous record lows for 6 and 7 January occurred - those were 1970 and 1924, respectively, so if we "ignore the new 2 data points" the resulting YBP average on the record-low column is 55.1. Possibly a statistical blip - it would be interesting to see similar recency-of-record data for a wide variety of locales.