> More like squirrel. You appear to be breeding flocks of them.
You appear to have a very poor understanding of that concept, TonyB. Playing squirrels is a way to introduce extraneous informations to evade a particular commitment.
To take a recent example not far from here, your whole comment to JCH is a big fat squirrel. You claimed that Calendar’s conjecture has been “elegantly refuted here by Giles Slocum in 1955”. When you read the conclusion to Slocum 1955, we see that this claim is false. Now, instead of acknowledging this, you went from “read harder” to doubling down with “Slocum considered it was refuted” (a fantastic claim to make when facing a quote where Slocum says exactly that it was not!) to “but the scientific establishment” and now to “but the met office”.
While you threw all these squirrels around, I simply kept repeating that your claim that Calendar’s conjecture has been elegantly refuted by Slocum 1955 is false.
And that notwithstanding all the “sorry I can’t hear you” and other kinds of passive resistance, like “you’re playing games while I’m a very serious person,” paraphrasing of course your cheap ad hom.
***
> [S]urely I was agreeing with you about the changing by hand?
The best way to agree with what has been quoted earlier would have been to say “I agree with was has been quoted earlier” and then point to it. To quote it again like it’s some kind of discovery does not sound like the agreement speech act.
If you want to agree with something relevant, try to acknowledge that the Moshpit linked to the correct Kimberley station, contrary to what you implied earlier. That, at least, won’t be squirrel territory.
