What a weak response, AJ. You buckle easily, don’t you? I practised commercial law, not criminal law.
Anyone can ask pointless questions. Refer me to the Corporate law prohibiting a company from supplying the funds for issue of shares in that company.
You still feign inability to remember, but you are not very good at it. Your inability to deny it is a dead give-away.

I was incorrect in my memory. You said it was “deceitful”. not “dishonest”. It was in a thread on the perversion of the definition of “marriage” to accommodate homosexual relationships.He purported to be reporting a comment of his homosexual brother in law
His comment was:
“he had a bit of a chuckle because of how it is deceitfully framed, according to him.”

My comment on this was:” All that nonsense, AJPhillips and no explanation as to why global warming has stopped, when the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. I do not have to “deny” your science. It has been proven not to work.
The point of the real science is that the human effect is trivial and not measurable. How does your brother-in-law work out that my question is “deceitful”? Ask him if it is as deceitful as falsely representing that the links you give are to the science showing a measurable effect 0f human emissions on climate?
What is this supposed to mean:” we can know that humans are affecting it due to the fact that the last time this much much CO2 entered the atmosphere this quickly, the earth was a lot more volatile with a lot of volcanic activity.”.I think it means that he has no idea, but would like to sound as if he does, by talking nonsense. Much like you in the last para of your post. You talk gibberish there because you are embarrassed at what a fool you have made of yourself
I do not expect that science will work out a way to measure the trivial effect of human emissions on climate. They would be more likely to be able to find a cure for homosexuality.. If it is not measurable it is not scientifically noticed, so the science is that human emissions have no effect on climate.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 7 June 2015 12:52:06

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371&page=0#307439

Phillips posted the idiotic comment, so earned the stage name “the village idiot”. The flaw in my recollection does not affect the situation, as "deceitful" is at least as idiotic as "dishonest"

Ah more name-calling, Leo? You really have nothing, do you?

You do resort to the ad hominem fallacy incessantly. ant is "flea", I'm now the "the village idiot". Hey, how about I call you "the knob jockey"? Then we're even, right? I mean, who then could possibly determine which one of us was right, and which one of us was wrong? At lease according to your fallacious logic, apparently.

Your name-calling demonstrates a special sort of immaturity. Don't you think?

The previous post from the village idiot contained this baseless abuse of myself:
“ou cannot provide a link to this alledged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual.”.

So I satisfied him with proof as to his earning of the status of “village idiot”, and now he is whining and working out retaliation by way of name-calling, believe it or not.
Of course, he can go ahead and make an even bigger fool of himself, but he is almost out of stunts to make more of an idiot of himself. His name was earned from his stupid behaviour, while he wants to inflict one on me based purely on his intemperate idiocy. He does have an alternative. He could wake up to himself and stop behaving like an immature idiot.
He could also learn how to spell” alleged”, it might be handy for a criminal lawyer
He could apologise for his false allegation, against me, of lies. That is how synchronicity works. He lied, and the proof bobbed up with little effort from me. I do not know whose effort it was, but thanks anyway.

Leo,

I only said, "...you cannot provide a link to this alleged claim of mine. Just more lies abuse as per usual", after you failed twice to point me to where I had said that your question was dishonest.

I even qualified my question both times with, "...not saying that I didn’t [say that]", because I thought there was a possibility that I might have, and if so, wanted to make sure you weren't misrepresenting what I had said.

It's nothing but lies and deceit with you, isn't it Leo?

VI If you can show any lie, by me, please do so. I understand the false accusation of abuse, because you falsely categorise my truthful description of your behaviour as abuse. You are nevertheless lying.
I had already told you that I would not be searching for the link, and knew that your story of your failed memory was untrue. You knew that you had said it, and took the precaution of not denying it.