About Tanoro

Christopher "Tanoro" Gray is a web programmer and science advocate especially concerned with resource management technologies, biology, and artificial intelligence. He is a student of epistemology and philosophy as well as an Atheist competent in Christian theology.
HOME > View Blog  >  Condescending Tard Thinks I am Condescending
Condescending Tard Thinks I am Condescending
Posted by: Tanoro - Oct 20, 2012 12:35PM

Have you ever been called yellow by a banana. That is how I feel now after reading a painfully long harangue from some fuck nut on Facebook this morning who doesn't really deserve a direct response, but I'll pick him apart right here where I have more room. Here is the setup.

The image is the original post

One of my friends posted the above picture of contrails in their typical cross-hatch pattern. The photo description made some seemingly questionable claims and, in the interest of open discussion and attempting to dispel misinformation, I like responding to those when I see them. I stated that I have seen photos from the 40s with contrails that look like these, implying that it is normal. Two people responded. Person #1 gave me the garden variety chemtrail theorist claim that, "Contrails do not stay intact in the sky for more than a few minutes- like 2-3 minutes." Person #2, aka Banana, requested that I, "Please post a photo that can be substantiated. I have yet to find one." My reply is here. Reading it, you may note that I didn't simply respond to any one person. I didn't want to flood the thread with multiple posts, so I attempted to answer both questions asked of me and showed what sort of evidence compelled me to believe chemtrails were nonsense. Fair enough, right?

Well, Mr. Banana exploded like a creeper. I'll be picking his rather lengthy response apart here. It gets rather amusing at just how many of his criticisms strongly reflect himself.

Christopher - Unlike you, I am not going to make all the assumptions you have already made in this exchange, such as the assumption that you made about me being among the ‘chemtrail and conspiracy theorists’ that you are 'scrutinizing'. I am not sure what I said, or even did that warrants you making such assumptions. I did not even 'like' [Original Poster]'s photo or [Person #1]'s comment. See, that's what an actual 'skeptic', 'science advocate' and 'confrontational debater' does. They don't assume. They don’t just post a 'warning' on their FB cover photo, and then go around 'scrutinizing' what people share under the guise of being an 'atheist,' 'skeptic' 'science advocate' and 'confrontational debater'. By the way, you’re being redundant. You know, people like you are what is wrong with society, as much as you probably like to fancy yourself as a gift. By the way, how is that self-identification working out in your relationships?

I'm not sure what I said, or even did, that makes you assume that I had made any such assumption. I simply answered all of the questions and provided a little bonus information of my own. By the way, I love how you are attempting to sidle this discussion away by dropping ad hom bombs on my cover photo.

Skepticism is a perspective that one should believe as little as possible pending a compelling degree of evidence. It describes how you categorize propositions in your life. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the state of my Facebook wall, so you're simply criticizing whatever you can find even if you must be dishonest to do so. Therefore, suggesting that my having a warning on my cover photo makes me less of a skeptic is absurdity, sir. It is not redundant to spell out that I simultaneously disbelieve in God, promote science, and I am willing to hold discussions with someone when I encounter a promoter of information that is either new to me or opposes the information that I have. I happen to have an interest in knowing what is true, but I am only moved by evidence. That is what a skeptic does. I am aware that because I choose to use these labels, you can dishonestly abuse them by stating they are something that they are not. It is a limitation inherent in language and I deem it acceptable. Fortunately, that does only two things to sway me into agreement with you: jack and shit.

As for my personal relationships, it works quite well. Predictably, I have fewer friends to speak of, but those I have are very close. We laugh. We cry. We love. We argue, but never fight. We genuinely enjoy each other because we know what to expect from each other. That is the effect I wanted and it works.

For you readers out there who don't visit my Facebook wall, I've got a cover photo that warns visitors that I'm an atheist, a skeptic, and a confrontational debater. The intent is that if you can't handle this brand of scrutiny, don't add me as a friend on Facebook. My friends all know that I pick bullshit apart and they are encouraged to pick mine apart as well. There is always an etiquette to when and how to have such exchanges in order to not just make an ass of yourself, something in which Mr. Banana clearly has no experience. I love it because it promotes honesty and open discussion, which grows into understanding, empathy, and long-lasting relationships. As I stated above, you will almost certainly have fewer friends, because not everyone is honest or interested in understanding. These people are of no use to anyone and will be filtered out.

Anyway, back to Mr. Banana.

As you can easily see from my previous comment, I simply asked you to please post a photo that can be substantiated as I had not seen one and you said you had. You know, substantiated, as in a photo that can be corroborated, confirmed or verified. I did a search for you since it seems to be too much trouble for you to do a thesaurus search to know that 'heuristic' is not synonymous. That's what asked for. Not this diarrhea of the mouth. But since you took a crap on [Original Poster]'s wall, I'm going to help clean it up. As you say on your own page, if you go around posting nonsense on your all I may respond with scrutiny. Be prepared for that. I am. I am still laughing at the 'YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.'

This reply is so stupid, I barely know what to say. I understood your request perfectly. My reply stated upfront that I didn't know what heuristic you were using. In other words, "I don't know what your methodology for verifying photos happens to be." I don't know what your standard of evidence requires, so I was honestly admitting beforehand that I was shooting from the hip as far as the photos were concerned. You didn't even tell me which observations you wanted me to show you. Did you want to see persistent trails or the cross-hatch pattern?

As for your "shit talk," it has no substance whatsoever except to show what a disgusting person you are and how quickly you resort to shit talk in what would otherwise have been a civil discussion.

Also, before I respond to you, I'll tell you that your language use smells of a condensing tone. Are you trying to be condescending to me? Let me tell you if you talked to me like that in person, I promise you I would not be exchanging anymore words with you. Minimally, I would have walked off so as not to waste anymore of my time on you. But since we’re here on the internet and you like running around trying to make the world more toxic, I’m going to try and dilute your crap and expose your stupidity. And burden of proof? Please. Please stop talking to me as if you understand legal procedure. How about you just start with just basic logic? And we are hardly in a court of law either. But if we were, I promise I would wipe the floor with you.

The feeling is mutual and not because you speak in a "condensing" tone, but because you communicate poorly, project your own faults onto me, and are explicitly rude, sir. Did the thought even cross your brain that my reply wasn't solely intended for you? Of course, it didn't. You had what you believed was a reason to spew vomit and that is what you wanted to do. Congratulations. By the way, the burden of proof is a basic aspect of logic, you moron!

First, your argument about water droplets or crystals is not just illogical, it is contradictory. In fact, it is so contradictory and illogical, I had to read it several times trying to figure out how I can possibly explain it to you so you will understand. I will say this, if 'climate and weather patterns vary based on location and time of year', then how is it possible contrails or chemtrails continue to behave the samee exact way andare consistently persistent throughout the world despite the clear and obvious variation of climate and weather patterns? Or as you put it, and as I wholly agree, 'Climate and weather patterns vary based on location and time of year, so it would be foolish to conclude that airborne condensation always behaves the exact same way despite environmental variations. If you wish to claim otherwise, I'd need to see some indication of expertise on the topic.' And don't worry about finding that article on short notice....you mustn't. Ya, I get the part about the flight paths.

Wow, it took you four paragraphs to finally get to responding to my content and you answer your own question with my content. Congratulations again. By the way, this part was intended for the other guy. You know, the one who said contrails can't last in the air for more than 2 to 3 minutes. This part of my reply was for him. Thank you for offering your blessings to it.

Regarding your 'Pre-1950s photos of military planes producing short AND persistent contrail formations', I am still waiting to see photographs of the skies in the 40s that are ‘identical’ to what [Original Poster] shared and as you said you had seen. And no, I do not believe that blogspots are a source of photos that the average critic would consider to be substantiated, corroborated, confirmed or verified. But more importantly, with the exception of the blogspot photo, the rest of the photos you provided demonstrate short contrail formations at best because the military planes are flying in a unison military flight exercise or attack, many of which are still in plain view. Since you seem to be attempting to address chemtrail and conspiracy theorists, and act as tough you actually understand their arguments enough to scrutinize them, you should know that the issue is regarding persistent, not short trails.

This is why I openly admitted that I didn't know what heuristic you are using. As I stated here already, I also didn't know what exactly you were wanting me to show you. I was able to find two more though and they are not on blogspot. The first is on the website of the New Zealand History Group of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, associated with the Archives New Zealand (their national archives). The other is a website by historian Steven Terjeson. If you need an avenue to further verify the legitimacy of these photos, the contact information for both is provided on the websites.


I obviously can't tell how long those trails where there, but they are certainly not dissipating shortly out of the plane as many chemtrail theorists suggest they all do. The nzhistory photo compells me to believe the trails were there for more than 2 or 3 minutes.

I don't know just how "identical" you want me to get. Which attributes of the photo are you wanting to see replicated in the 1940s? Tell me that and then I'll tell you if I have seen that before. Are you wanting to see persistent trails (which I have seen) or are you wanting to see photos of planes traveling in the exact same pattern as they do today (which would be absurd)? The claim made by the photo description was that you didn't see trails like these in the 40s. The photos I provided show that we did. Also, I don't need to understand the arguments of chemtrails theorists holistically. I only need to address the ones I encounter on their own merit as they are expressed at that moment. Otherwise, I am in danger of making assumptions, right? Whoops!

I asked for photos, because finding video due to the lack of publicly available video equipment to prove long persistent trails would be more difficult, although not impossible. But again, I am still just waiting to see substantiated photos like the one [Original Poster] provided and like you said you had seen from the 40s in which it does not appear the trails were freshly made because the planes are still in the photo. And here's a hint Google Images isn't necessarily a substantiated source.

Google Images is a means of finding sources. It is not a source itself. You do understand how to use a reference, right? Wikipedia, for example, is not an authoritative source, but it is an avenue for finding authoritative sources.

Still, I never said contrails couldn't be persistent. But I am wondering if the military is using the patents they have created for additives to the gasoline that allow them to stay cloaked from radar or that allow for weather modification with the stated intent to curb global warming. Of course, these patents also clearly communicate that they are not free from toxicity. Look it up for yourself. I’m tired of doing your homework. As for your other straw man argument about the fraudulent photo posted on FB, whatever. I've already wasted too much of my energy giving you an education that will likely be lost on you. And no, I didn't change my mind about making assumptions. There's a clear inference to be made here. You’re a douchebag.

Are you actually criticizing me for not doing homework on a topic about which I made no statements (a straw man) and then calling me a douchebag? You are truly a banana calling me yellow, sir.


I found a link this morning pointing to several photo galleries of photos taken from various magazines, photo albums, books, and other sources from throughout history showing persisting contrails. Sources are listed. They are verifiable. Personally, I think I've more than satisfied Mr. Banana's request.


This blog is an editorial and contains only the opinions of the author. The author claims no expertise on most topics of discussion and this blog is not to be cited as an alternative for properly vetted journalism or scientific sources.

comments powered by Disqus