Having said that I had concluded this interchange, I shall not continue the
topic. However, I think an interpersonal response is appropriate.

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were
replying to my post.

Those words weren't intended to mean what you think they mean. In
hindsight I could have expressed myself better. I apologise for any
offence caused.


I appreciate that very much, thank you.


Sorry. I was offended by "There are more important things than their
egos." in your original post. I saw that as an unwarranted slur on
people who are concerned about anthropogenic contributions to climate
change, and that got in the way of me expressing myself clearly on your
other point.
[...]
I do mind when they use ad-hominem arguments, such as "There are more
important things than their egos." That you incorporated that sentence
in your post makes it look as if you do mind that people disagree with you.


My comment was aimed, however poorly, at those of any view who will not tolerate
an opposing view. While it is often the case that some AGW supporters use
ridicule and offensive tones to deal with anyone who dares to disagree, it is
not exclusively so.

You are quite obviously not of that ilk, and I apologise if you were personally
offended by my remark. I too could have been more clear as to whom it referred.

I look forward to some interesting debates with you in the future.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *