17.12.16

Low Fares? Define Low

I don't like AA ... that's an airline! They try to convince us that everyone can fly now because they are so cheap.

Well, because their competitors do not fly to KL on Sunday from Bangkok I had to choose them. Kerching! Low fare? Not at all! I could actually pay less with the other airlines AND have a meal AND not scratch around worrying about the weight of my luggage AND choose any seat that's available: from previous experience,  they will give me a window seat, the worst possible option for me.

Then, due to misinformation from another carrier I found I had to change my flying time. SORRY,  it's less than 48 hours to take off so you can't change that flight. So, horror of horrors, I had to buy a new ticket. Low fare? Free meal? Guaranteed baggage allowance? No, no, no. I consider this second ticket outrageously expensive and feel sad that I have had to break my vow of refusing to fly with this airline. Until recently, I had not flown with them for 2 or 3 years. I hope this is my last trip with them for a very long time.

16.12.16

Appalling Behaviour on a Newspaper Forum

I have discussed many topics on newspaper forums over the years: The Independent had one then closed it; I subscribed to The Times for a few years and that was a good experience; now I am with The Guardian, new starter. I have paid membership dues to the Guardian because I feel I should but they say many people use their services but don’t pay. No judgement there, that’s how the Guardian manages things. I engaged in my first full blown discussion on the Guardian site last week when I told the assembled horde that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth visuals and other parts of his message were wrong or inappropriate. I said that and I believe that: my argument is that his graphs were far too nice to warrant critical review and many of his other ramblings have been challenged: I said that knowing it to be true: youtube contains many videos in which Gore is caught out. Immediately, I was attacked rather forcefully and I have to say that I did call Gore a liar. I defended myself and as the debate wore on, I was called all sorts of names and accused of all sorts of calumny. Then someone said I was a climate change denier. They made that up because I didn’t even infer that let alone say it. Well, that was it: John Samuel claimed to be a weather expert of some kind and he really stuck to that line and in spite of proving no such words came out, he called me a liar many times. Good for him. I even came here to this blog and reminded myself of what I had said about Gore when I had seen his film. I told Samuel that I had blogged about Gore in 2007 and again in 2010 … three references altogether. Since he was being so unfriendy, I suggested he search for my blog to prove for himself the truth of my assertions. He couldn’t find it! Smart as he claimed to be, in spite of clues as to a particular phrase to put into google, it was beyond him. He found an Excel blog and pretended that was the blog I meant. I said no, so he called me a liar again. I then mentioned having read and reviewed State of Fear by Michael Crichton which I said contained many interesting ideas. Samuel replied to tell me how bad the book was and that no one liked or respected it. Climate change denier that I am. You’re getting the picture now: John Samuel who does not know the difference between you’re and your, tells the world that they should not read a book because he does not like it. The reality is that Crichton might have got some of the science wrong but he questioned things and I think that was a very healthy thing to do. As Samuel tried only assassinate my character, others joined in and of course, several of them pointed out their master’s degrees, how they have been peer reviewers for academic journals and what do I know? All the while, these people have assumed that Samuel has identified the truth: he said the same thing so often that the others believed he must be telling the truth. I have seen this before and it is impossible to challenge because everything is subject to gainsay. Samuel was obviously frustrated that I wouldn’t just give him the link to my blog posts so I was branded a liar again but I felt he’s so smart he can ruddy well find it. Moreover, he would clearly have merely said something innappropriate about what I had said so I let it ride. I am sharing this post with him now and even he will then find that I really did make those posts about Gore all of those years ago and that I am not a liar! As that discussion wound down Samuel revealed another two traits: he labelled many people as liars if he didn’t like what they said; and he was obsessed with having the last word. I played the last word game and he played along exactly true to type. If John Samuel is really a scientist I just wonder if his work is ever peer reviewed as he cannot take criticism. He must be very difficult to work with when someone like me turns up and refuses to bow down to him. A very immature bully in my opinion. I decided to write this post since it is a controlled way of sifting out that man’s own lies and exaggerations and at the same time sharing with others just how he behaves in debate. Samuel and others are free to comment here and I will post everything that's not just outright offensive! I made mistakes in my discussions and admitted them: I am not too proud to do that but I will not allow some tiny minded little man to bully me or anyone else into kow towing to him. DW