Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "doubting Thomas..," "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Hey, quit it with the passive-aggressive insults. Stop the ad hominem and discuss issues, if you wish. You're the one that wanted to stop the discussion, perhaps because you were not expecting the push back.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Hey, quit it with the passive-aggressive insults. Stop the ad hominem and discuss issues, if you wish. You're the one that wanted to stop the discussion, perhaps because you were not expecting the push back.
Otherwise, kindly get lost. Thank you.
So you choose to disown post 6. Fair enough. Let's both get lost, the thread is already in the bullrushes and neither of us needs to push it further into the mud.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Hey, quit it with the passive-aggressive insults. Stop the ad hominem and discuss issues, if you wish. You're the one that wanted to stop the discussion, perhaps because you were not expecting the push back.
Otherwise, kindly get lost. Thank you.
So you choose to disown post 6. Fair enough. Let's both get lost, the thread is already in the bullrushes and neither of us needs to push it further into the mud.
I stand by what I said in #6, as I already have said. Except that, As I also said, I agree Google seems to have done a good job on 8.1% on its emissions.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Hey, quit it with the passive-aggressive insults. Stop the ad hominem and discuss issues, if you wish. You're the one that wanted to stop the discussion, perhaps because you were not expecting the push back.
Otherwise, kindly get lost. Thank you.
So you choose to disown post 6. Fair enough. Let's both get lost, the thread is already in the bullrushes and neither of us needs to push it further into the mud.
I stand by what I said in #6, as I already have said. Except that, As I also said, I agree Google seems to have done a good job on 8.1% 100% of its emissions, Scope 1, 2. and 3. Both Apple and Google still have a lot of work ahead of them mitigating the emissions of their suppliers.
Fixed. Now let's retire the silly back and forth and go to our corners.
Don't make me think you' be a less-than-honest poster.
LOL. I have no intention of changing what or how you might think. I don't even know who you are. Please don't flatter yourself.
You are obviously in a bad mood today. Since you seem to have nothing better to do today please go back to post 6 (as I've already asked more than once) and tell me what specific factual claim you made in it is 100% accurate, and as promised I'll show you why it isn't. That's the post that started this. Everything you asked since is simply distraction from it.
This is what I love about your posts. When you run out of arguments, you resort to ad hominems: "you're less-than-honest..", "you're in a bad mood"...
Try harder the next time.
So now you ignore the "elephant in the room" and what led to this: Your claims in post 6, none of them 100% accurate. Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Hey, quit it with the passive-aggressive insults. Stop the ad hominem and discuss issues, if you wish. You're the one that wanted to stop the discussion, perhaps because you were not expecting the push back.
Otherwise, kindly get lost. Thank you.
So you choose to disown post 6. Fair enough. Let's both get lost, the thread is already in the bullrushes and neither of us needs to push it further into the mud.
I stand by what I said in #6, as I already have said. Except that, As I also said, I agree Google seems to have done a good job on 8.1% 100% of its emissions, Scope 1, 2. and 3. Both Apple and Google still have a lot of work ahead of them mitigating the emissions of their suppliers.
Fixed. Now let's retire the silly back and forth and go to our corners.
You are welcome to go inhabit any corner you wish. Again, please speak for yourself.
You're a pretty arrogant dude, and sadly, the angrier you get, it seems the less your ability is to be civil, or to think straight.
The real challenge is not our non-sustainable, fossil fuel-dependent society and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, compared to the vastly more difficult task regarding the veritable elephant in the room—how to reduce the level of volatile and/or apathy-inducing particles otherwise known as Trump™️-emissions?
Google has never been good at tooting their own horn, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt you just didn't know better.
Thank you (and Anant) both for the lively discussion and the information provided, which has increased my knowledge on the subject.
The quoted line above is the only thing that set off my BS meter, as I recall statements like "Don't be evil" and "Open always wins." But it's a matter of opinion.
Google has never been good at tooting their own horn, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt you just didn't know better.
Thank you (and Anant) both for the lively discussion and the information provided, which has increased my knowledge on the subject.
The quoted line above is the only thing that set off my BS meter, as I recall statements like "Don't be evil" and "Open always wins." But it's a matter of opinion.
Thanks!
BTW, I'm familiar with the first phrase tho I think I've heard it here more than from Google. The second one I don't recall ever hearing but I don't have any reason to doubt it was said.
Comments
Try harder the next time.
Personally I don't avoid saying "I was wrong" when I am. Try it, it's liberating.
Otherwise, kindly get lost. Thank you.
What's your problem, man?
Fixed. Now let's retire the silly back and forth and go to our corners.
You're a pretty arrogant dude, and sadly, the angrier you get, it seems the less your ability is to be civil, or to think straight.
The quoted line above is the only thing that set off my BS meter, as I recall statements like "Don't be evil" and "Open always wins." But it's a matter of opinion.
BTW, I'm familiar with the first phrase tho I think I've heard it here more than from Google. The second one I don't recall ever hearing but I don't have any reason to doubt it was said.