Ellen Stuttle

Members
  • Content Count

    6,022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Ellen Stuttle last won the day on September 12

Ellen Stuttle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ellen Stuttle

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Psychology, Physics, Philosophy, Literature, Music

Recent Profile Visitors

14,127 profile views
  1. Am I right in thinking that the bridge to the Q material you posted was Michael's brief discussion of "Operation Snow White"? I read the whole copy/paste, and I don't think it's nonsense, whether or not all of it is true. Although lengthy, it isn't prolix but instead terse in covering a lot of territory. But how much connection do you see to Mark's discussion of Carl Barney? Ellen PS: The link under the "Snow White" heading gives me a URL-not-found notice.
  2. "We're all in this together and working for the same goals, so it's ok if we have the goods on one another" - that sort of reasoning. This would militate against the idea of any other string-puller besides "The Gang." The old Gang families wouldn't want to be controlled by any outside power. Ellen
  3. A question which puzzles me about Epstein's filming blackmail-usable videos of his guests is: How could the guests not have expected that hidden cameras were filming them? We aren't talking about naive bumpkins. Ellen
  4. Michael, Can you fix the formatting in the above post? I couldn't. Ellen
  5. Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  6. This post: I thought that you were his target there. Ellen
  7. I agree about "Climate Change" being a core (not the core, but part of the core) leftist religious belief. Furthermore, William has many leftist beliefs. However, contrary to the dominant opinion here, I don't think that William's belief in AGW comes from leftist, or more narrowly environmentalist religionism. I think that in his case the belief comes straight from scientific ineptitude. I don't see William talking about "The Environment" in reverential tones, as if speaking of the Holy of Holies with a quaver in the voice. I don't see him going on about vanishing caribou herds, or hunters clubbing baby seals to death, or the (prodigiously baby-seal-eating) polar bears. I think that William's big worry is the permafrost. And I think that he believes that he learned the basic science needed from Spencer Weart and that the case for AGW is now clear cut - see the melting Arctic sea ice, what else do you need? I think that that's the poor competence level of his reasoning - as he's given away with some things he's said. Ellen
  8. Then you weren't paying attention. See my post on the thread ("Weather Gods"). Ellen
  9. Michael, We definitely have divergences in the respective ways we see William You say that you've not seen him backing down. But he never stood up in the first place! As Jonathsn pointed out above, he hasn't - characteristically - revealed what he believed until some recent topics. (I added the "characteristically" because I think that there have been some earlier exceptions, but not ones of such significance he risked being creamed like on current issues where he's revealed beliefs.) With the climate issue and Jonathan's questions, it's true that what Jonathan is asking for can't be had. No such studies exist. But as I've said before, I think that William is too poor at scientific thinking to understand the questions. He's maybe realizing by now how way over his competence level he is on the topic. Where we agree is in thinking that he badly craves an audience. I wonder if you've noticed - see his most recent status entry - that he's setting up his Twitter account so as to embed threads from OL. I think he's making bids for attention from elsewhere. Ellen
  10. I don't believe it. I think it's what he does out of cowardice. Ellen
  11. I wasn't referring to what William is or isn't doing "with persuasion techniques." I'm talking about his avoiding acknowledging forthrightly that he's been corrected in whom he takes to be genuine Q people. His standard method of sliding around an issue with the backbone of a snake, not that of a human who stands erect and approaches something directly. Ellen
  12. Jon, Thanks. I'm glad to be alerted that there are ones to be suspicious of. I've noticed disparities - but then there are plenty of disparities amongst O'vishes or any other ideological groupings. In the Q case, however, the sound of it from what you're saying is that there are attempts at discrediting via pretenses of being fans. Ellen