Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3
From	Message
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 07:57	www.factcheck.org This was mostly a symbolic agreement with goals and loopholes and self enforcemement. The USA was in no danger. It was just to get something started. The USA being the richest country was to help with a fund. Less rich countries needed help reducing emissions while developing.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 07:59	And how much $$$$$$$$$ was the U.S. supposed to pay upfront? Did China have to pay any money upfront? How about Russia? Japan?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 08:14	Romans Don’t waste my time.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 08:26	<Don’t waste my time.> I accept your resignation. gg
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 08:33	Romanw For the record of anyone else reading this the fact check clearly answers the question. No need to waste more time. It is a cat and mouse game to you yes and most observers realize that. I will respond to my friend Anomal but I don’t think discussions with you Romans are productive.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 08:38	DM You’ve been pledging to ignore me for weeks. When will you actually do it?
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 08:53	I’m a moderator. When you hijack threads I will make comments. Otherwise you are correct I only rebut you and walk away. Have the last word and declare victory like usual.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 08:59	Deleted by thumper on 15-Jan-19, 09:40.
thumper 15-Jan-19, 09:43	Went too far with the personal insults. Don't squander good comments by incorporating personal insults.
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 10:28	The Fact Check provides a good framework for discussion. It goes into detail on the relevant facts as opposed to talking points.
thumper 15-Jan-19, 11:05	www.freerepublic.com If you follow the yellow brick road you'll find that 'Fact Check' is actually a creature of left wing 'philanthropy' with the stated objective of shaping public policy. The above link is just one of many that exposes Fact Check's underpinnings.
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 11:46	mediabiasfactcheck.com Well it’s still a good framework for discussion. I think that critique itself is very biased and confuses the links between the site and foundation. The site is widely respected. Regardless if you can refute the specific facts that’s fine. All I’ve seen is talking points that the fact check site explains and rebuts. The supposed “up front money” for example is a distortion of the purpose of the fund.
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 12:03	www.google.com Comparatively the fact check sites are pretty reliable and they update when errors are found.
romans8384 15-Jan-19, 13:53	A lot of these so-called “fact check” sites, as well as Snopes, are highly partisan.
dmaestro 15-Jan-19, 22:00	Not really and you haven’t refuted their claims but that is just how it goes these days. Claiming fact check sites are hopelessly biased is par for the course.
stalhandske 15-Jan-19, 22:16	Come on dmaestro, what else can he say? Anything (and everything) that contradicts his beliefs is wrong in some way, here partisan. Even established facts don't seem to matter. This is much like arguing against someone who claims that the Earth is flat, or that 9/11 did not include aircraft crashes into the towers. All this despite clear eyewitnesses, photographs, films, etc etc. I acknowledge that this is such a liberal club as to not only accept such nonsense to be posted here, but not to make any apparent attempt to rectify it either by the owner & moderators. On the other hand, such attempts by myself have proven utter failures, so I guess we should just let things "go as usual".
romans8384 16-Jan-19, 07:10	<Not really> Yes really. Do some Googling. <and you haven’t refuted their claims> Do some Googling. Particularly on snopes. <but that is just how it goes these days. Claiming fact check sites are hopelessly biased is par for the course.> Do you think if partisan people form a group and call themselves “Fact Check” that they’re to be trusted? You think the “Fact Check” name by itself gives credibility?
romans8384 16-Jan-19, 07:21	<Come on dmaestro, what else can he say? Anything (and everything) that contradicts his beliefs is wrong in some way, here partisan. Even established facts don't seem to matter. This is much like arguing against someone who claims that the Earth is flat, or that 9/11 did not include aircraft crashes into the towers. All this despite clear eyewitnesses, photographs, films, etc etc.> Oh you’re a sneaky one, stalhandske! I don’t think the earth is flat nor do I think airplanes didn’t crash into the Twin Towers nor do I think 9/11 was an inside job. But your attempt to suggest I do is illustrative of your despicable behavior in here. And your attempt to equate disbelief in the theory of evolution to belief in a flat earth and 9/11 conspiracy theories is hilarious! <I acknowledge that this is such a liberal club as to not only accept such nonsense to be posted here, but not to make any apparent attempt to rectify it either by the owner & moderators.> Are you suggesting disbelief in the theory of evolution is the same as belief in a flat earth and 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because the only thing I’ve argued against is that the theory of evolution is a valid theory - and plenty of scientists feel the same way 👍 <On the other hand, such attempts by myself have proven utter failures, so I guess we should just let things "go as usual".> You mean people can still express disbelief in the theory of evolution? Oh thank you! Thank you! 😀
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.