Hi Andrew (21st November at 7:10 pm), thanks for your prompt response to my comment. Only one of your four quotations appears to me not to allow John any wriggle-room. The item of direct relevance to my point was “Andrew, you illustrate superbly well why you are not a lawyer and I am. Thanks!” so I Googled it to confirm that the statement was made by “Slayer” John O’Sullivan. Nothing was picked up. Please would you be good enough to provide a link to the origin of that quotation.
As I said before (November 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. Unless I am in possession of irrefutable evidence that John has said “I am a lawyer” then I am not going to say that he has done so. It’s called being sure of the facts .. ”.
You came back with your carefully considered opinion (which is of course nothing but the truth – as you see it) that “ .. I’d call you an idiot for playing such word games, but I’d only be repeating myself .. ”. Well Andrew, I’m in good company.
I see that you have repeated those four quotations for Vernon’s (Kuhns-kat) benefit and couldn’t resist throwing in your usual insults. Calm down Andrew. It is far better to debate in a rational but respectful manner. You’d have a far more positive impact if you dropped the invective and simply stuck to facts and opinions (with maybe even a little gentle flavouring of sarcasm now and again). Your determination to get to the bottom of an issue is to be commended but your manner of presentation needs some honing. Perhaps a refresher course is due. After all it is 30 years since you studied at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Standards in respected professions change a lot in that time, but maybe not in journalism (thinks News International scandal – http://www.economist.com/node/18958553).
I’m surprised that you haven’t been back to Lucia’s Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-85992) in the last couple of days. I’m sure that they would love to hear from you again. Your name has been mentioned 94 times and you’ve only commented twice. John O’Sullivan’s has been mentioned 88 times so his ears must be burning but he hasn’t put in an appearance since his 4th comment on 17th. Maybe he’s too tied up acting as Dr. Ball’s attorney or acting as Legal Consultant at his “Slayers” unorthodox-science association Principia Scientific International (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a).
Best regards, Pete Ridley.