Why do I get the feeling I'm trying to conduct a debate with a weasel?
First you break into a conversation between myself and another person claiming I'm all wet about the albedo and infrared flux evidence; then when you get shot down in flames on that one, you claim that the albedo and ir evidence has to be tossed because of the thick crust (i.e. you parrot Jim Acker's argument); next when you see that one also get shot down in flames, you come back with more vague big-picture stuff.
The big picture is made up of those kinds of details, Reep.
Put down the mirror.
First you break into a conversation between myself and another person claiming I'm all wet about the albedo and infrared flux evidence;
Show me where I said that. Your spam post makes it clear that the albedo data is--through some unstated goofy logic--being offered as supporting evidence of Velikovskianism. I responded to your whole post a year before in attacking that theory and I reminded you of the same more recently. I have also pointed out all of this more recently yet and you simply ignore and come back with the same dumb thing.
. . . then when you get shot down in flames on that one,
Meaning you simply wailed that I hadn't taken your albedo diversion. You can't prove Velikovsky's cosmic pinball game with Venus's albedo. There would be too many more prosaic explanations in any event. I have never been dumb enough to be suckered by your illogic and in this case did not advertise otherwise.
. . . you claim that the albedo and ir evidence has to be tossed because of the thick crust (i.e. you parrot Jim Acker's argument);
Not tossed, but it's never never never going to be even a good start to resuscitate Velikovsky. And that's what I was saying a year ago. And that's what I told you I was saying a year ago.
. . . next when you see that one also get shot down in flames,
You have delusions of grandeur when even adequacy would be a delusion. You've done nothing but make false charges, misdirect, quote-mine, and characterize those who dissect your arguments as head cases.
. . . you come back with more vague big-picture stuff.
You should take your head out and look at the big picture, too. And read your own source material. The Venus it describes is not and cannot be young. Your source authority clearly states as much.