I don’t get how highlighting this is not an unusual news and not a change in their behavior is frustrating to you.
They are continuing their brand of distracting the public/looking good. This is not a statement written out of the good of their hearts. And they have done so for halve a century.
There were parts where you did kinda seem to be giving them credit if you look at some if the posts without the context of your other comments (which they may not have seen?).
I have them credit for this not being a change in their behavior. True. I considered this paper to be in bad faith from the get go for it highlights the responsibility of their competition. Carbon footprints etc. are distractions. So is shooting your buddy in the leg to flee from an ever hungry polar bear. You cannot run. They will come. The bear must not regard you for this dutyful help in his ever hungry task. If it takes them longer in total they must feel disdain instead.
Your responses seem to suggest that they have been open about this all along which comes off as pretty fucking disingenuous and ignores a lot of the other shit they did.
Have they created reports here and there which may or may not have been shown to the public at the time? Sure. So fucking what? That doesn’t really excuse anything at all. It doesn’t absolve them of what they have done, at all.
Yes. They have been using high profile studies for decades to distract the public. Those reports were important in the public discourse. Even more so then this current, widely ignored, paper.
I don’t get how highlighting this is not an unusual news and not a change in their behavior is frustrating to you.
They are continuing their brand of distracting the public/looking good. This is not a statement written out of the good of their hearts. And they have done so for halve a century.
I think they might be frustrated with the no change in behavior part?
Maybe they feel I advocate for instead of against them. This post looks like hope posting. I guess I should use more redundant and simple statements.
There were parts where you did kinda seem to be giving them credit if you look at some if the posts without the context of your other comments (which they may not have seen?).
I have them credit for this not being a change in their behavior. True. I considered this paper to be in bad faith from the get go for it highlights the responsibility of their competition. Carbon footprints etc. are distractions. So is shooting your buddy in the leg to flee from an ever hungry polar bear. You cannot run. They will come. The bear must not regard you for this dutyful help in his ever hungry task. If it takes them longer in total they must feel disdain instead.
Guess I am tired and wordy ^^
Your responses seem to suggest that they have been open about this all along which comes off as pretty fucking disingenuous and ignores a lot of the other shit they did.
Have they created reports here and there which may or may not have been shown to the public at the time? Sure. So fucking what? That doesn’t really excuse anything at all. It doesn’t absolve them of what they have done, at all.
Yes. They have been using high profile studies for decades to distract the public. Those reports were important in the public discourse. Even more so then this current, widely ignored, paper.
k