New York City Gives 1.1 Million Students Free Pass From School To Join Climate Change Protests

There is an interesting story in the New York Times that the city has decided that any of its 1.1 million public school students will be allowed to skip classes without penalties to join the global youth climate strikes to be held this Friday. As someone who has long advocated for action on climate change and opposes the Trump environmental policies, I am entirely in support of demonstrations. However, the decision raises some concerns over how the New York Public School system chooses which protests to sanction. Would students be permitted next month to attend anti-climate change protests? If not, this authority is being used in a viewpoint discriminatory manner.

The protests are planned to coincide with political leaders who are in NYC for the United Nations Climate Action Summit and a later General Assembly meeting. Some 2400 events are planned from Sept. 20 through Sept. 27.

This is a big deal for environmentalists and I am happy to see students participating. However, from a free speech standpoint, it would seem that the school system has to have an open policy for participation in any protests if it is to be fair to conservative or other students. Otherwise, this policy is just a reflection of the bias of the school officials. I happen to share their view but I am concerned over how students will be treated with an opposing viewpoint.

What do you think?

483 thoughts on “New York City Gives 1.1 Million Students Free Pass From School To Join Climate Change Protests”

  1. Greta gets it right and it cuts both ways, that is if there were any Republican party leaders to join with.

    “No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow this to continue to be a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics.”

    Great Thunberg

    1. “And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics.”
      Gee, Greta, (and aside from your obvious close-mindedness on the topic) what happens when one party uses an emotional issue to foment a faux crisis to get votes? Riddle me that.

      1. mespo, physics is not emotional issue and your hurt feelings are not an excuse for ignoring it.

        1. Physics is not an emotional issue until one party politicizes or weaponizes it. The FBI was not an emotional issue until one party politicized and weaponized it.

  2. A “school strike” orchestrated by school system administrators ought to be met with funding cutbacks and disciplinary sanctions. It’s not what the taxpayers are being dunned for.

    Working people don’t get paid for not showing up, sending their firm’s customers away and encouraging some of your customers to do something entirely unrelated to their job description. It’s not hard to grasp, unless you’re in on the racket.

    1. Thank you for sharing, Squeeky!

      Drove by the county courthouse the other day and saw the square filled with people for the climate strike, some holding up signs expressing a desire to end fossil fuel energy. This in a city with abysmal public transit, lousy or non-existent sidewalks, and no bike paths and no one, as far as I know, talking to city council about making such improvements (yet).

    2. Squeaky, I tried to find a text of the video but only found other sites with the video. Any ideas?

      It would be nice to print up and leave around when we see these young protesters protesting..

      1. I transcribed it! Growing up

        To all the school kids going on strike for climate change, you are the first generation who have required air conditioning in every classroom, you want TV in every room, and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever you don’t walk or ride bikes to school but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic. You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good luxury items to stay trendy. Your entertainment comes from electric devices. Furthermore, the people driving your protest are the same people who insist on actually inflating the population growth through immigration which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport. The more people we have, the more forest and bush land we clear. The more of the environment that’s destroyed. How about this? Tell your teachers to switch off the aircon. Walk or ride [your bicycle] to school. Switch off your devices and read a book. Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food. Nope. None of this will happen because the piece say is because you’re selfish, badly educated, virtue-signaling little turds inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a noble cause while they indulge themselves while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life. The piece ends by saying “Wake up, grow up, and shut up until you’re sure of the facts before protesting!”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeaky, thank you so much. I am going to use this. How about a short poem that provides the essence of the statement?


  3. Ah, this is precious:

    One of the standard talking points among progressives is that the right-wing obfuscation machine will hide behind “uncertainty” in order to stall necessary action on climate change. And yet in this latest episode, the tables have turned. As Rachel Warren—a Lead Author on several important IPCC reports—and her co-authors argued in a 2018 paper, the uncertainty in our understanding keeps alive the possibility that the latest UN climate goal might pass a cost/benefit test after all.

    1. Here’s the complete summary Olly.

      The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test. Costs are almost certainly high: The median global carbon price in 1.5°C scenarios implemented by various energy models is more than US$100 per metric ton of CO2 in 2020, for example. Benefits estimates range from much lower than this to much higher. Some of these uncertainties may reduce in the future, raising the question of how to hedge in the near term. Maintaining an option on limiting warming to 1.5°C means targeting it now. Setting off with higher emissions will make 1.5°C unattainable quickly without recourse to expensive large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), or solar radiation management (SRM), which can be cheap but poses ambiguous risks society seems unwilling to take. Carbon pricing could reduce mitigation costs substantially compared with ramping up the current patchwork of regulatory instruments. Nonetheless, a mix of policies is justified and technology-specific approaches may be required. It is particularly important to step up mitigation finance to developing countries, where emissions abatement is relatively cheap.

      1. The summary makes clear that available tools should all be weighed – “uncertainties may be reduced in the future” – and strategies separating “adaptation” from mitigation as Kurtz favors is arbitrary in the extreme and we should instead be guided by cost/benefit analysis on a case by case basis.

        1. Anon1,
          I read Warren’s paper. I do not think she made a very strong case for ‘carbon pricing’, considering the economic uncertainty.

          “1. Due to large uncertainties about the economic costs and, in particular, the benefits, there can be no clear answer to the question of whether the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test.”

          I am also uncertain about the efficacy of CO2 being the target of pricing, versus methane and nitrous oxide. The rise of CO2 may be a symptom of other issues rather than particularly causal (though still problematic, no doubt). Perhaps a wide share of the problem is impaired CO2 sequestration. Synthetic and concentrated fertilizers and pesticides impair carbon sequestration in the soil, and when they pollute the ocean, it is further impaired there.

          1. It certainly does pass a cost-benefit test.

            Beaumont, Texas, provides the latest exemplar.

            But look to the costs of defending New York City…

            1. David Benson,
              Because Beaumont, TX got flooded?

              How does it pass the cost-benefit test? Warren did not provide a strong enough argument for a carbon tax. She outlined enough problems, that I do not think that, in and of itself, is a good solution.

                1. David Benson,
                  But it doesn’t follow that a carbon tax is definitely the best management tactic.

                  Warren did not provide sufficient reasons for why it would be. What do you argue?

          2. Prairie, you read the paper or the summary? The summary made no case for any specific strategies though it mentions a carbon tax as a lower cost action.

            1. ” The summary made no case for any specific strategies though it mentions a carbon tax as a lower cost action.”

              Then what?

          3. Prairie – economic uncertainty is a given no matter what strategy one is considering for 50-100 years out. The paper touts carbon pricing as the most decentralized and simply instituted strategy and it is already in effect in some countries.

            “The case for carbon pricing as the central plank of mitigation policy is stronger than ever, although there may be a place for more interventionist policies alongside it, given the urgency, the political economy, and the existence of other market failures.”

            1. Anon1,
              ” The paper touts carbon pricing as the most decentralized and simply instituted strategy”

              But not necessarily the most effective. Nitrous oxide is 300x more damaging than CO2, despite representing a smaller percentage of emissions. Trying to mitigate nitrous oxide would mean retooling agriculture, primarily, which will affect food prices. Dealing with the underpinnings of nitrous oxide would help other related environmental problems, like coral reef damage, algal blooms. It would also likely improve the efficacy of carbon sequestration.

              The quote from her paper is an assertion with insufficient support.

      2. “Here’s the complete summary Olly.”

        The title of the article was: “The UN’s Climate Change Agenda is So Extreme Its Own Analysts Can’t Defend It”

        One of the first things most well trained people learn is how to present their work. Anon offers a summary of the article Olly refers to but it isn’t the summary of that article. It isn’t even a summary rather an abstact of a completely different article that than referenced by Olly.

        All very confusing and likely an attempt by Anon to pull a fast one. He probably barely read the article and probably compied the abstract figuring he could use someone elses work product without being noticied. He probably doesn’t understand in depth what either article was talking about. Suffice it to say this type of posting is the work of a charlatan.

        Is it possible for leftists to stay focused or deal with material in an intellectual fashion? I guess not.

        1. Obviously I provided the Summary of the abstract partially quoted by Olly and the opinion piece he linked. Those who prefer to think for themselves will hopefully appreciate the parent material by scientists unfiltered by political writers.

          1. Not obvious at all. More likely that you tried to pull a fast one.

            Everyone can go to the article that the editorial was writing about but that was not what Olly was demonstrating despite what you think was a slick way of changing the dialogue.

            It’s typical of what you do and makes you untrustworthy.

            1. You say that based on your slick ability to copy an abstract from another site and call it a summary of the article on the prior site?

              No wonder you like slick Willy.

              1. Allan,
                That was not what Anon1 intended, but I do agree it was unclear the source of the summary.

                1. Prairie, we disagree but I have seen him do this too many times. Watch closely in the future and you can make up your own mind.

                  Maybe now that you are watching Anon will be more careful.😀

          2. Anon1,
            I think it would have been more clear if the abstract had been quoted, the link provided, and the context explained a little more. It was a little confusing at first until I drilled down through the Mises article, then followed the link for Warren’s paper. Without quotation marks and a citation, at first I thought it was your summary, though the ‘voice’ did not sound like yours.

            1. Prairie, take note how you had to dig it out just like I had to. That happens quite frequently. Most people don’t do that so reading what they read might think Olly was misguided.

              Is that fair to Olly?

              The fault lies in Anon’s hands and he has done this before so I believe it purposeful. In the past I pointed it out so now I warn people that Anon is slick, not correct and not to be trusted. In the past he has made statements that he denies later but never admits them when those statements are copied and cited. He just goes on to do more of the same.

                1. Olly, you”re full of s… Didn’t think so ’til now.

                  If you think thousands of scientist worldwide are running a hoax you’re a fool and I seriously doubt you somehow did not follow what I posted – you did read you’re own I hope – which fleshed out yours with original material. I apolgized to Prairie, but anyone who read your post in full would know what mine was if they are functioning adults.

                  1. Anon1,
                    It is a little unclear to me what Olly meant by ‘this hoax’. I think he means carbon pricing as a strategy to address environmental problems.

                    1. Prairie Rose,

                      Apparently using the word hoax was a bit too much and it has triggered him even further. I doubt scam, fraud, swindle, etc. would bring him any comfort either.

                      The source article discussing the Cost-Benefit approach does nothing to persuade me that this is nothing more than a massive redistribution of wealth scheme. Developed countries will be subsidizing the undeveloped countries and countries like China and India just happen to be in the latter category, or so it would appear. I’ve included some additional articles that further point to an accord that will not achieve anywhere close to it’s goals without first having new energy technology to replace the existing.

                      In order to meet the more ambitious target of the Paris Agreement – limiting global warming to 1.5C which has been requested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC’s) special report – decarbonisation rates must reach 11.3% annually. That is seven times greater than the current rate, which has slowed to its lowest level since 2011.

                      Global emissions actually increased by 2% in 2018, due to a 2.9% increase in energy demand. The report warns that extreme heat and cold weather patterns contributed to this growth in demand, and will likely exacerbate decarbonisation efforts in the future. In total, 69% of the increase in energy demand was met by fossil fuel production.

                      The projects approved by China amount to nearly 40 per cent of the world’s total planned coal-fired power plants, according to the Global Coal Exit List database run by German environmental organisation Urgewald and 30 other partner organisations.

                      But in separate statements published on Tuesday, the world’s first and fourth largest emitters put the onus on rich countries to fulfil their commitments to mobilise $100 billion per year by 2020 for developing countries to cope with the impacts of climate change.

        2. Allan,
          To be fair, I think Anon1 was trying to provide some context for the paper by Rachel Warren referenced in the Mises article. It is just the abstract, but the whole paper is linked on the Mises’ article website.

          1. Yes, Prairie, but Olly produced an editorial that Anon was responding to so it wasn’t a summary of the editorial as it appeared. It tried to reverse what Olly was pointing out without notation of where it came from. That is not proper.

            If this was the only time somethng of this nature happened with Anon I would overlook it but this is part of his modus opperandi. He is trying to act as if he has an answer but he really is using someone elses workproduct. He could have stated that Warren said ‘such and such’ and here is an abstract from her ‘paper’.

            The abstract was from a different address and not even a summary but an abstract.

    2. Another reason a carbon tax is off-focus:

      “While these forgotten gases account for only a small fraction of total greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, nitrous oxide is up to 300 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere when compared to carbon dioxide over a 100-year time period. Methane is 25 times more effective, says Kristell Hergoualc’h, a scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).”

  4. here’s a newer climate doom type article. basically it says increasing carbon rates can cause the loss of cloud cover that cools the earth, leading to more rapid heating

    this is the kind of cascading effect that may be triggered when a certain threshold is reached,. it’s predictive so its not a crystal ball, it is based on advanced computer modeling. the models may be wrong. but they’re more sophisticated than what could be done in the past. whatever the level of certainty, these kinds of tipping point phenomena are what we should be concerned about.

    of course it’s the job of politics to decide what to do with such information. and politics is the art of the possible.

    if prevention is essentially impossible, then the wise politician will turn from the question of prevention, to cure,

    if cure is impossible, then it’s all about getting to the life-jackets, and lifeboats, first.
    At that point you want a Dux Bellorum in charge. And one from your own gens.

    I guess one could say “Lets hope it doesn’t come to that”

    1. Mr Kurtz,
      What do you think of this?

      “Total soil microbial biomass carbon content was reduced on imidacloprid application. Except dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase activities, all other soil enzymes namely, β-glycosidase, fluorescien diacetate hydrolase, acid phosphatase and urease responded negatively to imidacloprid application. The extent of negative effect of imidacloprid depends on dose and exposure time. This study concludes imidacloprid application had transient negative effects on soil microbes.”

      Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid, I think. Same thing messing with bees and birds.

      1. I use imidacloprid on the yard around my home – it’s the only thing that even slows “crazy ants” down. And yes, I am careful not to spray flowering plants,
        and follow label instructions because it is a broad-spectrum neonicotinoid and doesn’t just kill insects and arachnids, but fish as well.

        But it’s better than having crazy ants setting up shop iwhere you live.

          1. from :

            “The Rasberry crazy ant or tawny crazy ant, Nylanderia fulva, is an ant originating from South America. Like the longhorn crazy ant (Paratrechina longicornis), this species is called “crazy ant” because of its quick, unpredictable movements (the related N. pubens is known as the “Caribbean crazy ant”). It is called the “Rasberry crazy ant” in Texas after the exterminator Tom Rasberry, who noticed that the ants were increasing in numbers in 2002.[2][3] Scientists have reorganised the genera taxonomy within this clade of ants, and now it is identified as Nylanderia fulva.[4]

            In 2014, it was discovered that the ant produces and covers itself with formic acid as an antidote to the fire ant’s venom.[5] It is the first known example of an insect being able to neutralize another insect’s venom, an ability speculated to have evolved in South America where the two species share the same native range. Colonies have multiple queens, which also contributes to their survival.[6]

            As of 2012, the ants have established colonies in all states of the Gulf Coast of the United States including at least 27 counties in Southeast Texas.”

            1. Egad. They sound obnoxious. Thank you for the info.

              I heard an interview on NPR of an ant researcher who wrote a book called Adventures With Ants, I think. It sounded very interesting and is on my book list. I wonder if he mentions those little buggars…

          1. We tried all the nonlethal fixes – they seem to regard those as recreational drugs..Same with all the pyrethroids labeled for crazy ants.

            Bioadvanced Complete Insect Killer with imadicloprid and beta-3-cyfluthr is the only thing that actually controlled our crazy ant issue, and it even does a better job on roaches and wasps than other insecticides

            1. Loupgarous,
              “they seem to regard those as recreational drugs.”

              Yeah, that’s no good. Cayenne might make them mad and crazy.

              Flame torch an option? Bummer that that was the only insecticide that works.

              Good luck!

  5. about adaptation versus mitigation. these are important terms in the debate. i find that a lot of people are confused by them. just this morning a reporter on NPR blathering like an authority referred to adaptation efforts like engineering better bridges seawalls and waterways as “mitigation efforts”

    that’s exactly backwards.

    PREVENTION is MITIGATION in this context

    ADAPTATION is what is done to adjust. the objective is RESILIENCY

    some “actions” may be both mitigation and adaptation, such as, in transitioning from fossil fuels, in general

    but some actions conceivably could be adaptive, but not mitigating. for example, shutting down nuclear power plants endangered by rising sea levels (like we wish Fukushima had been) would be adaptive, but not mitigating, since nuclear power is one of the most efficient low carbon forms of energy.

    better understanding of these terms helps in conversations. I have found that generally people don’t see any difference and as I heard on NPR today even some reporter who pretends to be an expert, doesn’t speak with any sort of clarity and can have it totally backwards, even as he presumes to “educate” listeners

    1. Where I’m from, a nuclear power plant backed up by two oil/natural gas-fired turbines powers the area upriver from New Orleans. A very large levee protects these plants from flooding. The Green New Deal’s opposition to nuclear power is puzzling, because it forces utlilites to rely on carbon fuels for baseload demand .

      Germany shut their nuclear plants down and are now reliant on Russian natural gas and coal strip-mined from the German countryside for baseload power, even though they lead Europe in renewable power capacity.

      If the idea is to REDUCE reliance on fossil fuels, you wan to use nuclear for baseload and pray your peak load occurs when the sun’s out or the wind’s just right. If the wind’s too slow or too fast, your windmills are only good for killing birds.

      Ideally, you’d have two 1-Gw thorium-fueled plants on a staggered fuelling schedule so that there’s always baseload coverage and power that can be sold on the grid, no matter what. But the Green New Deal isn’t about not burning fossil fuel. Baseload under the Green Nee Deal depends on cheap natural gas from fracking, which isn’t very “green”.

      I’d say this was worth a 60 Minutes or Frontline documentary, but they only seem to be interested in helping the Democratic Party out, not exposing scams like the Green New Deal.

      1. The Green New Deal does not represent the Democratic Party or many of it’s presidential candidates, who along with Obama, who signed off on the first hew plant in over 30 years, favor nuclear power

  6. Once again, the quoted observation about Allan’s use of ad hominens was made by dhlii in the marathon thread.
    I’m not the only one to comment on Allan’s “style” of what he claims is “debate”.
    If he does not know if dhlii actually said that, be can go back to that exchange to refresh his selective memory.

    1. “Once again, the quoted observation about Allan’s use of ad hominens was made by dhlii in the marathon thread.”

      You are a proven liar so I wait for the quote and its address. That you won’t do because it likely doesn’t exist or wasn’t an insult. Your reading skills are poor so even when you are not lying we can’t trust anything you say. I await the quote and reference. You remain a liar.

      “I’m not the only one to comment on Allan’s “style” of what he claims is “debate”.”

      We have a bunch of people on this list that insult anyone that agrees with the President or watches Fox News. Why should they be spared insult? You also have Fido (The Brainless Wonder) who yaps at your heels to repeat whatever you say. Fido hasn’t had an original idea since I have been on the blog.

      As far as content goes, my last comment summarized alot of things I have been saying all along . You have not been able to adequately respond to them and jump from one conflicting idea to the nex.

      You are a liar and loser.

      1. dhlii says: July 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM

        “Dhlii, I provided you with loads of reasons.”

        Nope. We have been through national security – that failed.

        “Maybe your Faraday cage is lined with mirrors that are blinding you.
        I can’t say much more because you might be a captive of the sometimes violent Sun People who are giving you a good tanning.”

        This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts.

        You would not except stupid ad hominem from other posters here.
        Why should you accept it from yourself ?

        1. Anonymous – can a Faraday cage be lined with mirrors and still work? Asking for a nudist friend.

          1. LOL

            Be careful Paul or Dr Death AKA anonymous will accuse you of using insults.

            He won’t be able to answer the question. The answer is yes but it won’t necessarily protect your nudist friend from sunburn.

        2. I rather like this one, too:

          dhlii says: August 13, 2018 at 1:46 AM

          We are posting blog comments – quoting people like Bastiat – BTW I do not think I have quoted him – you have. I have refered you to him.
          Regardless, making arguments – including refering to others who have made those arguments well is what one does when commenting.

          Regardless, you have this bizzare concept that people do things in blog comment sections beside comment.

          I DO things in the largest part of my life which is not here.

          Highlighting this:

          dhlii says: August 13, 2018 at 1:46 AM

          Regardless, you have this bizzare concept that people do things in blog comment sections beside comment.

          I DO things in the largest part of my life which is not here.

          1. Not quite sure what you glean from this posting either.

            Dhlii is far more libertarian than I. You probably never heard of Basitiat though you will promptly look him up and say you are an expert on him. Dhlii wasn’t sure whether or not he quoted from Bastiat but I am sure he appreciates Bastiat, Jean Baptiste and other brilliant people something you do not hold in common with dhlii. He is smart and you are the polar opposite.

            Not sure where you are going with the postings except to do your thing which is to take bits and pieces out of a whole so you can lie, take out of context, and spin.

        3. Where are the real insults? I think that discussion between dhlii and myself went over your head. He is very smart and brought up a lot of scientific information as did I. We disagreed on the potential effects of EMP and we disagreed on how far government should go to ameliorate whatever situation existed. We could not come to agreement. That is fair but I never lied, misquoted him or harshly insulted him. The sarcasm that did occur came from both sides. I don’t see anything there to justify your claims.

          However you argue that almost 4 hours is wrong when it is actually 3 hours and 40 minutes despite the fact that the exact times were known and repeated often. Thus, we already know that you deal with minutia and stay away from the discussion at hand. You are worthless and a loser.

          1. dhlii to Allan:

            “This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts.

            “You would not except stupid ad hominem from other posters here.
            Why should you accept it from yourself ?”

            Dhlii and others get it, but it’s not something that Allan can grasp — which doesn’t come as a surprise.

            1. Really?

              He isn’t silly and nuts even if an argument of his is a bit off. He is very bright. You are silly, nuts and stupid. There is a difference between those two comments.

              You are also a loser. Look at how you are going through the old blog trying to find something to show that I have said other people have your characteristics. Some do but not dhlii who I like.

              1. Of course no one has said that dhlii is “silly and nuts.” Dhilli said that Allan’s ‘nonsense argument’ made Allan look ‘silly and nuts” which is true.

                Dhlii said this to Allan:

                dhlii to Allan:

                “This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts.

                I’ve already supplied the link.

                “Silly and nuts” certainly applies to Allan.

                1. Dr. Death, I know you are very dense so I guess this type of nonsense and stupidity should be expected.

                  The comment said by dhlii ““This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts.” Is not an insult of the person whether said by dhlii or myself. It refers to a particular argument. I didn’t bother to assess the argument up or downstream so I don’t know if he was right or wrong.

                  But, what is obvious is. that you are stupid and anyone that is reading these comments without knowing the personalities involved would find that your personality was as stupid as can be.

                  You remain a loser

                  1. dhlii says: July 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM in response to Allan

                    I’ve inserted their names for clarity.

                    “Dhlii, I provided you with loads of reasons.” -dhlii quoting Allan

                    Nope. We have been through national security – that failed. -dhlii to Allan

                    “Maybe your Faraday cage is lined with mirrors that are blinding you.
                    I can’t say much more because you might be a captive of the sometimes violent Sun People who are giving you a good tanning.” -dhlii quoting Allan’s ad hominem

                    This type of nonsense argument just makes you look silly and nuts. -dhlii to Allan

                    You would not except stupid ad hominem from other posters here. -dhlii to Allan

                    Why should you accept it from yourself ? -dhlii to Allan


                    Allan doesn’t want people to get it, just as Allan isn’t operating on all cylinders.

                    1. Can’t find the rash of insults and neither can anyone else. That is after your parsed through 826 comments.

                      Here is what you call an insult: “you might be a captive of the sometimes violent Sun People who are giving you a good tanning.”

                      I admit it requires reading some of the 826 comments to understand the meaning behind the sentence but that is definitely not an insult.

                      You are a loser again.

                    2. Loser, you are a waste of time posting the same thing under different topics. You are trying to prove something and you have proven it. You are a dummy and can’t read. So yes, everyone should read those 826 messages so they can find where I insulted dhlii. The illiterate one couldn’t. He has proven once again that he is a liar.

                    3. The dhlii thread is an excellent example of the way that Allan thinks and “reasons.” And, yes, there are insults to be found there, as well.

Comments are closed.