WE Blog

It will be a good day if JimmieMac, in all of his entities, would stay away.

All he does is start chaos.

Source: International Herald Tribune;
“Venezuela’s Chavez threatens to seize properties, citing price speculation.
Chavez warned that price speculation is occurring “at all levels of society, from the big capitalists to the small shopkeepers,” and said his government could expropriate property from individuals or companies that purportedly sit on goods to sell them later at inflated prices.
Haw, it’s happening again for the umpteenth time, a socialist destroys the freedom and economy of a country that was doing well, a country rich in oil and natural resources.
U.S. wake up before it’s too late, socialism has never and will never work….ever.

Looks like things got quite nasty yesterday on the open thread.
James M. asks:

“How about you XXX? Would you be pissed if suddenly I started to post personal data about your wife, your address, your email and other aspects of your life on the blog?

Of course, I don’t expect you to answer maturely on the matter, but there is always hope.”

James, I use your given name because you post under so many nics that it’s hard to keep track. I’m not trying to offend; just making sure you know who I’m addressing.
The short answer is, I’d be very “pissed”. Let me take this opportunity to roundly condemn whoever posted anybody’s personal information on this blog, be they conservative, or Lib. Such action is dishonorable and cowardly.

“…Of course, I don’t expect you to answer maturely”

Why not? I’m a fairly moderate voice on this blog. I’m known to be critical of both sides of the political spectrum, and I try to be personally fair in my dealings with other bloggers. Tho I’m human and have on occasion slipped into shouting matches, it’s pretty rare.

James, I’ve said before that the open thread turns into a cesspool at night. You’ve contributed greatly to that. It seems to me that your main goal is to deeply offend as many people as you can. So why the outrage and hurt feelings when you get what you give? What kind of reaction do you expect?

I might point out that had you kept your word and left this blog, this never would have happened. Everybody has a right to post here, but you said yourself that you were leaving. Instead, you show up under yet another nic.

I’m sorry that someone posted personal info on the blog. While I’m not convinced that you didn’t do it yourself, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I wonder why the Eagle continues to sponsor this blog?

Surely the writings of many posters, both right and left, cannot reflect well on this newspaper and the City of Wichita.

Or, sadly, perhaps it is representative of both.

Anybody see the article about returning Iraqi veterans and violence in America, in today’s New York Times? According to the Times, 121 killings occurring after April, 2003, can be attributed to returning Iraqi veterans.

Many of us argued in 2002 that this would happen, that a spike in violence at the hands of returning vets would happen. After all, it’s always happened: we’ve seen increases in domestic violent crime after every war the US has ever fought.

All our arguments were discounted; “shouted down” is a more accurate description of the response from those who were so eager to trash Iraq in 2002-2003. Since I believe post-war spikes in domestic violence are a natural response to warmaking, the current replay of this ancient behavior should remind us all, again, that waging war carries hidden costs. These hidden costs, of which this is but one, raise the “hurdle rate” in deciding whether waging war is moral or not.

Several of these stories are extremely gripping. One in particular reminds me of an incident I was involved in (I am not a veteran) in the early 1970s:
—
…On New Year’s Eve [2005], Mr. Strasburg, accompanied by his brother, consumed vodka cocktails for hours at Jim’s Bar and Package in Arnold [Nebraska]. Toward evening’s end, he engaged in an intense conversation with a Vietnam veteran, after which, he said, he inexplicably holstered his gun and headed to a party. Outside the party, he drunkenly approached a Chevrolet Suburban crowded with young people, got upset and thrust his gun inside the car.

Mr. Strasburg said he did not remember what provoked him. According to one account, a young man — not the victim — set him off by calling him a paid killer. Mr. Strasburg, according to the prosecutor, stuck his gun under the young man’s chin. There was a struggle over the gun. It went off. And Mr. Varney, a strapping 21-year-old with a passion for hunting, car racing and baseball, was struck.

Asked if he pulled the trigger, Mr. Strasburg said, “I don’t know,” adding that he took responsibility: “It was my gun and I was drunk. But what the hell was I thinking?”

The Suburban drove quickly away. Mr. Strasburg jumped into his Jeep, speeding along wintry roads until he crashed into a culvert. Feeling doomed, he said, he donned his bulletproof vest and plunged into the woods, where he fell asleep in the snow as police helicopters and state troopers closed in on him…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?pagewanted=6&hp

I think it would be fairly easy to find 121 murders committed by people who have never seen Iraq, and in the same time period. In the vast scheme of things, I don’t think we need to be worrying about returning veterans, unless of course, they are drunk and armed.

Can you say PTSD? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat_4

“Ophelia Cagel” wrote –

“I think it would be fairly easy to find 121 murders committed by people who have never seen Iraq, and in the same time period. In the vast scheme of things, I don’t think we need to be worrying about returning veterans, unless of course, they are drunk and armed.”

You just described “Nathan.”

But I digress.

One of the most important studies about post-Vietnam PTSD focused on the difference of soldiers returning from WWII as opposed to soldiers returning from The ‘Nam.

The vast majority of soldiers came back from Europe and the Pacific on steam boats and had a week or two to decompress from battlefield stresses. Vietnam flew soldiers back to “The World” overnight; one day they were in the jungle deathly afraid “Charlie” would kill them, and the next day they were in Wellington, Kansas. Talk about culture shock.

Among the manifold ways the George WMD Bush administration has mismanaged his little Iraqi adventure is the abrupt way our troops have been zipped back-and-forth between the hell of IEDs and shi’ite vs. suni civil war and the relative calm of Wichita. And God help you if you were wounded in Iraq and have to depend on George WMD Bush’s administration of Walter Reed hospital and the Veterans’ Administration.

“Nathan,” God love him (because, after all, that’s God’s job), has declared his intention to murder anyone who might kill his dog. That’s not a rational approach to civilized life

The 121 Iraqi veterans who’ve come back and become murderers are, most likely, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Bank on it.

It’s another cost to this irrational, illegal, immoral war waged by George WMD Bush.

WHO ARE WE REALLY?

It is time we ask ourselves that question and answer it, we say we stand for what is right and excuse ourselves from all actions by saying “we stand for what is right!” But that begs the question what do we stand for? We allow other to define that for us, to act on our behalf in our name and they do as they will do free of guilt. As they do it in our name, for our sake on our behalf but is that who we are?

They have invaded other countries, killed the innocent and destroy their cultures in our name and stating “we stand for what is right!”. But what is right about it? How do their actions serve us, how does it uphold what we as Americans say we believe in? We allow them to decide what rights we as Americans should or should not have or defend. Yet they themselves fail to honor those same rights in their actions in our name.
We have became by our own design birds in a glided cage, we sing and chirrup the day long yet all the time are prisoner of those that will decide our fate. In a country that prides itself on the claim that we are free and decide our own fate.

So how has it happen that those that do not believe in those same freedoms are allow to assure them in our name? The actions do not support the claim, we ignore the reality in our faces and rest assured that we are free. That we need not worry about those freedoms and about those that do in our name and all the while laid out before us is the proof they act of their own accord.

How so? On September 11, 2001 we, the American people were attack by a group that means to kill us. Their intent is not to subjugate us, it is not to force us to accept their extreme religious believes. They mean to kill as many of us as they can. So why is it that in our name has it happen we invaded a country that did not attack us. That do not have anything to do with the attack upon us , subjugate the people in the name of bring Democracy! It that the defining of Democracy to subjugate to control their resources and daily lives.
If it is the definition of Democracy that those who act in our name have for those in other countries. What is the Democracy they have in mind for us? Do we have a choice and even if we do are we willing to oppose them?

Alarmist? I would say not, unless the person who yells fire when they see smoke and flames is an alarmist.
But rather then be paying attention we wait for someone else to see the smoke and flames, how do you know they are not wanting the house to burn? “Liberty means ever vigilant” but it comes to the point were we are being intentually near sighted. So many wild claims, so many valid points to view yet we stand blind to the wheat and the chaff. Where is my proof? Again you would wait for someone else to insure you freedom to watch out for your very Liberty.

I have no more trouble finding the proof I needed to assure me that what I had suspicions was happening in 2004. Is actually happening then it takes to see the smoke on the horizon. But this is the United States of America, it can not be happening here! When we have U.S. Senators on the floor of the Senate using the love of the Constitution and the liberties assured there in as a put down and a dig at the other side of isle.
Then what is happening?

When the self acclaimed mastermind of 9-11 is still healthy and making new propaganda tapes. While someone that posed no threat to us and the country he was in is laid waste to and private companies receive no bid contacts and are paid hundreds dollars a bag to do our soldiers laundry! Just who’s interests are being served? All in YOUR NAME, have we surrendered not to some foreign terrorists or foreign dictator but to our own apathy about the very meaning of what it means to be American. What we stand for not just in the world but even in our own country. So again what do we stand for and believe? Just who are we really?

How Hillary Squeezed Out a Win in New Hampshire–

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

Obama backers are upset about efforts by top Clinton supporters to remove poll observers that the Obama campaign had stationed around the state on primary day, an intervention that the Obama supporters say hindered their get out the vote efforts. . . .

[Clinton campaigner] Lasky was also involved in the attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places on primary day to check off the names of voters as they arrived so that the campaign’s get out the vote workers would know which of their supporters had and hadn’t voted. Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls.

The Obama campaign countered that that law applied only to monitors who are at the polls to challenge potentially invalid voters, a practice that is usually limited to general elections and which their volunteers were not engaged in. The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn’t get in the way.

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn’t voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor. Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

“The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation,” said Edwards. “My effectiveness that day [in checking off names] was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in” to protest the observers.

*****

Remember that Clinton “won” by only some 6,000 votes, a deficit that could have been easily overcome had Obama poll watchers been allowed to do their jobs by contacting non-voters.

Happy Sunday,
Have you read about supply side Jesus,

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html

Fun stuff annie.

The chapter in the same book featuring Rush,Hannity,bush,O’Reilly etc. in the Vietnam war is also hilarious.

Sorry next time I will post pictures… Oh so much for that idea huh.

#
XXX
Posted January 13, 2008 at 9:03 am | Permalink

Looks like things got quite nasty yesterday on the open thread.
James M. asks:

I’m sorry that someone posted personal info on the blog. While I’m not convinced that you didn’t do it yourself, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the response XXX.

The information give about me I’m not so bothered with. However, the information posted that is not about me, pisses me off.

That very personal information was my sister’s email and my sister’s home address.

Do you think any of the Libs going there to protect her after posting her private information?

She has nothing to do with this blog, doesn’t own a computer and doesn’t even know how to operate a computer.

Another point, my sister is in the phone book. However, her first name isn’t. So how would the stalker know to publish her first name here on the Wichita Eagle Blog if they haven’t gone to extraordinary lengths to do so. In other words, they were using illegal stalking methods.

This is what happens when Lib stalkers who think they own the blog try to control the voice of others by stalking their personal lives.

These Lib stalkers outed someone completely innocent.

So before anyone gets all high and mighty about who they outed, you outed the wrong person, an innocent person and you should be ashamed and you need to be punished.

Hank Price posted a claim from a “meteorologist”, (not a climate scientist) January 13, 2008 at 7:32 am

“Another major reason that I remain skeptical is based on what I know about past climate changes that occurred before man walked on earth.”

Past natural climate changes do not prevent anthropogenic caused changes. For example, nuclear ‘winter’.

JimmyMac posted January 13, 2008 at 11:58 am

“This is what happens when Lib stalkers who think they own the blog try to control the voice of others by stalking their personal lives.

These Lib stalkers outed someone completely innocent.”

This is an anonymous blog. Where’s your proof that a “Lib stalker” made yesterdays post?

JimmyMac doesn’t have any — he seems to just want to attack, whine, and draw attention to himself.

Arizona Serial Rape Suspect Arrested, Linked to Attacks by DNA

Sunday, January 13,2008
Associated Press

CHANDLER, Ariz. — A suspect in the sexual assaults of several young girls in Chandler has been arrested and police said Saturday that DNA positively links the man to the case.

Chandler Police Chief Sherry Kiyler said Aceves is an illegal immigrant who was deported twice for drug charges in California in 1999 and 2003.

A sick pervert and yet another reason to seal our borders with Mexico until a viable entry and work system can be created.

I was first Max. :)

However, two posts about this sick pervert isn’t enough. The outrage needs to be shouted from the top of every courthouse in the U.S.

OK Regular beat me this time on the illegal immigrant rapist post!

I see that JR, Capn, and their ILK want to keep up the personal attacks on this blog, then they are the first to complain, put their tails between their legs and go crying to the editors.

They’ve made a love fest out of attacking Regular/Kansas and whoever else they don’t like. Then they complain that there’s nothing but personal attacks on the blog.

Regular a suggestion for you: Take 7 whole days in a row, and IGNORE them, but keep up the conservative posts.

Eventually, they’ll turn on me or someone else, but I don’t care!

Apophis,

You don’t get it or are just too dense/Liberal to understand.

Your Lib buddies and perhaps you, have been posting my name on this blog for quite a while. I didn’t not voluntarily put my name on this blog. The Libs did.

I started signing in with my real name, hoping it would take away the taunts that occur daily by the vicious Lib posters. I was wrong, it made it worse.

These Lib posters are going to find out real quick there are consequences for their reckless actions.

Oops Max, you’re right I need to do that.

Meanwhile, there are more important things to attend to, like:

THE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF GAMES!

An accusation of “attacking” coming from Nathan?

Isn’t THAT the pot calling the kettle black?

How old is the Earth Nathan? Do you concur with daddy that is all of 10,000 years old because the “bible” says so?

Apophis — The Bible doesnt say so… There are those, however, who claim that the Bible says so… That is the who rub in this “young earth” / “old earth” debacle (cant call it a debate)…

Apophis,

So, to prove my point, you turn around and start trying to attack me.

As I said, you too are one of the greatest detractors at this website.

The day you leave will be just as grand if not better than your calls for Kansas to leave.

Here and on another thread at the same time, you bring nothing but criticism of other posters there Nathan.

Now I know you have little else. But why not take your own advice?

See JR?

How much more mean spirited can you get than what Apophis has just posted? Well, WS Clark and Steven have gotten a bit more mean, but I hardly even come close to that kind of crap.

Is that me you are referring to JimmieMac?

Thank you for the compliment. I can detest you as well if you wish.

For the most part, I pity you. You should pay heed to Pedant’s 1:48pm post.

sugar

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \?li-b(?-)r?l\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English l?odan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \k?n-?s?r-v?-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: preservative
2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism

Poor JimmyMac. He cannot understand the difference between who owns a domain name, and many years of peer-reviewed climate science.

All he can do is attack the owner of the domain. He cannot refute the “messengers”, nor the “message”.

‘The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2
“Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing”

CLAUDE LORIUS
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/medailleOr2002/Page02.html

Sorry Apophis. There is a long line ahead of you!

Youtube has a series of eight videos where Gavin Schmidt and his colleagues lost the Global Warming Debate.

The first starts here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8RI0tRcNs&feature=related

That last post was mine, the boy has been on my computer while we were gone.

Hank

Dear Hank,

And what do some “isotope geochemists” do?

‘Eric Steig’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=54
“Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past.”
More at link.

See what Drs. Lorius, Hansen, et al wrote, in italics, at my 2:08 PM post,

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/open-thread-113-2/#comment-272729

Read the Claude Lorius link there.

Read the RC post, and bio of Dr. Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, in my 2:12 PM post.

Cosmos,

You were the one who started to question anyone who spoke against Global Warming as not being a “climate scientist.”

My father was merely using your same standard.

So now will you stop using that as a way to discredit anyone who speaks against Global Warming?

Please, if you would just refer to global warming as the “manbearpig” you’d make all of this clearer.

Well Nathan, most reputable scientists state that the Earth is in escess of 4.5 billion years in age. Zircon crystals have been dated at at least 4.4 billion years of age from strata in Australia. Logic would dictate that the planet would be older than that number.

Again, how old do YOU think the Earth actuall is Nathan?

well hank…………….how can anyone think you have any credibility discussing science when you deny science in the first place?

If you want to believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, power to you. You need to saty out of REAL science discussions however.

Nathan posted January 13, 2008 at 3:28 pm

“You were the one who started to question anyone who spoke against Global Warming as not being a “climate scientist.”

My father was merely using your same standard.

So now will you stop using that as a way to discredit anyone who speaks against Global Warming?”

Nathan, how can you be so clueless about scientific methodology?

Credible scientists are the most skeptical people in the world.

Well then someone is trolling your nic Nathan.

Yup you apologized the first time you made that vile assertion. But you or someone in your nic did it on several more occasions.

I’ll afford you were being trolled.

Hank? YOUR take on faith would seem to be that anyone who does not believe EXACTLY as you do does not qualify as faithful.

Your take would also seem to be that your God created a world to look deliberately older than it is.

I’ve resolved to be kinder to those of faith. If they will do the same. So I’ll not pursue it more than to say that a God of such deviousness is not one I would follow. I don’t like being played.

Hank posted January 13, 2008 at 3:55 pm

“When did I ever deny science? Every day I bring to the blog a scientific opinion on GW from a different credible scientist. Many of which have dedicated their lives to scientific research, much of which is related to GW.”

Hank’s “credible”(sic) “scientist”(sic) today:

“Most meteorologists including me have always been taught to treat the sun’s output as a constant–now I am not so sure…”

Well duuuhhh! “Credible scientists” know that solar varies. They also know that solar does not explain the warming for the last 30 years.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/open-thread-113-2/#comment-272646

Sometimes, most times, it is about money. For some people anyway.

As there is NOTHING to lose and much to gain in addressing global warming proactively, it is probably fair to speculate that those who do NOT want us to address global warming have some financial stake in their position.

BTW, Hank, you would be quite correct in saying that Apophis is a non-believer. He is a non-believer in your ideas of extreme fundamentalist BS about the age of the Earth/Universe. On that point you are most correct.

On the other hand, you and Nathan would appear to be non-believers in accepted scientific methods and precedures that show fairly reasonbly that the universe is a very old thing.

Max, you are confused.

Yes, there are people like Apophis and even JR who reflexively attack posters because they are conservative. However, the mess that “Regular” is at the root at do not occur simply because he is a conservative. Regular/Kansas/James MacCluer/JM/Eier/Cousin It/etc. is a troll. His goal is to cause disruptions in discussions, and to get people angry at him. A lot of people, even those who readily identify this man as a troll, do not seem to get this. They respond, they point out his contradictions and his hypocrisy, not seeming to realize that the very hypocrisy itself is a bait. I really don’t believe (I could be wrong but it’s true) that he is really all upset about the insults he gets here. They’re badges of honor, they are successes. This is a man who tells the “libs” (itself a provocative term) to “bring it” and then complains about “libs” “piling on” him in “see how they are” posts. This is classic troll behavior, and he is good at it.

Don’t confuse “Regulars” troubles here (which, from his POV, I doubt are troubles at all) with his conservatism. I, for one, truly find the political views you and your political cousins here like “AgHawk” post here disturbing and even rhetorically pretty empty (Hillary is not a raging socialist [she is probably the most pragmatic of the three front runners] and government funding of social programs is not a terrible slippery slope to someone like Chavez) but you are also not trolls, and while you are certain of your viewpoints you are not filling your posts with baits. There are some, I would admit, on both sides of the political aisle who post here who do not seem to know the difference.

But there is one.

Re: Regular/etc.

DNFTT

And this advice, I know, will continue to be ignored.

Hank, once again, you seem to confuse lack of agreement with your view with an “attack” on your faith.

That’s like saying if someone says that s/he is an atheist, they are attacking Christians.

It’s not the same thing.

hank…..what exactly is your definition of a “non-believer”?

Anyone who disagrees with Hank is a non believer.

God tells Hank and Hank tells us. This is part of the reason evangelical Christianity is the perfect marriage with Republican policy.

If someone is unfortunate, they have fallen short of grace. It is their fault.

If someone is blessed, why God wants it that way!

It’s a neat little circle they make for themselves that lets them out of any concern for anyone or anything but themselves and their God.

Children,

I’ll be back later, going to feed livestock and work my dog before dark.

Fight amongst yourselves till I get back.

Fondly,

Hank

Hank —

Why is Chas. attacking your faith by saying your belief in a young earth lacks any common sense –

But it is NOT attacking Chas.’s faith for you to say Chas. is a non-believer because he does not accept your literal views of Genesis? (such literal views are not accepted by millions of Christians).

No sugar — the light was created on day 2 or 3 if I remember right, it was the day or 2 before he created Regis Philbin Kathy Lee Gifford

Debating

1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don’t disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don’t win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective – You’re just debating.

Giving opinion

An opinion is a person’s ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact. Accordingly, all information on the web, from a surfer’s perspective, is better described as opinion rather than fact.

Fact

Generally, a fact is defined as something that is the case, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. People are interested in facts because of their relation to truth[citation needed]. Often a fact will be claimed in argument under the implied authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts. Dispute may arise in defining the standard upon which the authority of the fact rests. Confounding this, Rhetorical use of the term often does not disclose from where the authority originates.

Hank posted January 13, 2008 at 4:41 pm

“Many of the scientists in my daily GW posts are credible, peer reviewed climatologists or scientist working in related fields.”

Dear Hank,

No scientists in your “Inhofe 400″ list have peer-reviewed work refuting the consensus re AGW.

If they did, they would not be buried in a long list of filler, like TV weathermen, and economists.

And having peer-reviewed work in a non-climate field is not a substitute for peer-reviewed climate work.

Anti-War Billionaire George Soros Funded Iraq Study

Sunday, January 13, 2008

A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people – less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate – have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.” foxnews

Max writes, “7 DAYS, Regular, 7 DAYS.

“Give it a shot.

“It will be more fun to argue for a strong Conservative America, and expose the weak and failed Liberal strategies, then to continue with personal arguments with the idiots here.”

Uh, Max, in case you haven’t noticed, this is the dude who boldly declared that he would quit the WEBlog on Jan 1st of this new year.

One wonders who is dumber, the Troll poster who can’t change or you for thinking that he’s capable of change.

Here’s JimmyMac’s source for his plagiarized post above:

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html

Freebird
Posted January 13, 2008 at 12:49 am | Permalink
Sugar(aka Chas) how do you know what I’m looking for? Are you clairvoyant?
=============================

Freebird appears confused… He/She keeps trying to identify me with Sugar… A real joke!! I have been gone for a good bit of today…

I have no clue where Freebird gets his/her straange ideas about sugar.

Oh, and that post, by and of itself, was not trollish.

Now if only he would follow that advice.

Yup, Chas. Whenever you see a post by JimmyMac that seems to make sense and is well-worded, google it.

9 times out of 10, it’s lifted from somebody else and passed off as his.

He once pretended that he’d read Dante’s Inferno by plagiarising a paragraphing from a literary critic. You’d think with as much pratice as he gets from constantly lying here, he’d be better at it.

BTW, looks like the editors have been busy pulling posts.

Yesterday’s “Open Thread” is down by about 50 posts. Quite a few were pulled on this one too.

While I agree in principle, I am a little mystified as to the criteria for which posts get pulled.

I wonder which posts were pulled? I havent checked the open thread from yesterday in its entirety!

Could be he is just sleeping it off??

I have also noticed the absence of the numerous appearances of the sock puppet ballet.

Yea, thats a good point… So, then, what is the point of having the Blog??

Paul Krugman’s latest:

What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.

What European countries definitely haven’t done is dismantle their strong social safety nets. Universal health care is a given. So are a variety of programs that support families in trouble, helping protect Europeans from the extreme poverty all too common in this country. All of this costs money — even though European countries spend far less on health care than we do — and European taxes are very high by U.S. standards.

In short, Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that’s why it’s important to get the real story of the European economy out there.

According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we’re told, and the economy will shrivel up — the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.

*****

Finally, a voice of reason who looks at results not ideology.

I have my doubts, CapN…

I tried to ask this question before. I will try to once again.

Where is the line on when someone is no longer credible because of what they believe?

Apophis, Doug, JR, Cosmos,

Is anyone that believes in a supernatural being which is contrary to science no longer credible in any discussion pertaining to science?

Or is it only when they believe that supernatural being did something contrary to scientific understanding that you think they are no longer credible?

Sugar,

If we are having a conversation about an omnipotent God, who would be OMNIPOTENT, why on Earth would you start questioning His ability to create light already in existence? (i.e. already having traveled the needed distance to be seen…)

Seems like you should be mocking us on believing in such a supernatural being FIRST, let alone what we might believe about that God later.

Which brings me back to my questions above.

MonkeyHawk,

You said that (short answer) someone who believes in God is not credible in a discussion on science.

Do you have any idea how many scientists there are who believe in God?

Would you then say that a scientist is only credible in a discussion on science if he rejects God?

Chas,

Do you believe that God is Omnipotent? Do you know what the word means?

Are you conceding to me that you believe God made the sun and moon?

Just where do you start mocking me for my beliefs and not yourself for yours? Where is the line?

“Nathan” –

When you say:

“Do you have any idea how many scientists there are who believe in God?

“Would you then say that a scientist is only credible in a discussion on science if he rejects God?” you show that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the “short answer.”

One of the most famous Einstein quotes is about how “God doesn’t not play dice with the universe.”

In other words, Einstein spent his life and intellect trying to figure out how God thinks. That’s pretty much what ever scientist attempts.

But Einstein was constrained by the limits of science. Einstein didn’t have the liberty to explain stuff as “God’s will.” Einstein wasn’t playing with a full deck.

Carl Sagan — who’s been vilified as an atheist by you and your father, among others on this forum — constantly referred to “God.” Just not *your* “God.”

A scientist’s “God” is not some magical wizard who would wave a wand and recreate reality on a whim. The scientist’s “God” set up a system of natural laws and consequences that result in a Boston Terrier and a Great Dane having common genetic heritage.

“God” isn’t just a bigger and smarter “Nathan.”

Science, for all its limitations, recognizes this. “Nathan,” on the other hand, does not.

Nathan — IF the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament, then there is no such thing as a Christian God!! Because that would mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is different that the God of Peter, James, and John..

You really need to broaden your horizons a bit…

“Is anyone that believes in a supernatural being which is contrary to science no longer credible in any discussion pertaining to science?”

I do not think so. I think religious belief and involvement in science are two independent (read: uncorrelated, unrelated) constructs. My friend who is a mud phud (M.D., Ph.D.) is a serious evangelical Christian and he has an astounding depth of understanding about science. This religion-science dichatomy thing is a straw man, made of flimsiest straw, IMHO.

“Nathan” –

I’ll grant you that Einstein, a Jew, wasn’t talking about your “Christian God.”

Science doesn’t have the freedom to limit “God” to your specifications.

Thank you Steven.

That has been the point I was trying to make in my typical drawn out way of asking questions.

There are several posters here, who seem to think that my father and I are unable or incapable of having any kind of discussion on science because of our faith.

I was trying to illustrate that there are many in the scientific community who have the same beliefs as my father and I do or similar beliefs.

Chas,

You need to explain to me how:

“IF the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament, then there is no such thing as a Christian God!!”

It has nothing to do with me broadening my horizons either.

Nathan YOU mentioned you were talking about the “Christian” God as opposed to the “science god” or some such thing… My problem is that I dont see any difference…

GOD is GOD… period… Obviiously the God of the OT isnt a Christian God, since there was no such thing as Christian in the OT…. Surely you figured out that statement, without trying to flame me on it… Geez…

Chas,

Second, on the discussion of the speed of light, what I am trying to say is this:

When God created the things he did, he created them as they were and then they proceded from there.

Light is a matter of distance and time. I simply believe that God created certain lights at a distance already traveled.

I do not believe that the speed of light had to change or doesn’t exist. I am saying that an Omnipotent God, whom is creating light, would have no problem creating that light already having traveled a certain distance in an instant.

Chas,

When my father was calling people non-believers, I beieve he was referring to those like Apophis, Doug, and JR who are atheists.

So, no, I don’t think it is far better to call us all believers.

Chas,

Of course you do not suggest I am not a Christian. You are a unitarian. You obviously don’t believe anyone is wrong or right. That is precisely why I say you are not a Christian.

To some degree, things are my opinion, and to a much greater degree they are simply based on the word of God.

I do not use my standards to say you are not a Chirstian. I use the standards of the Bible to say that.

The questions I have for you then, since you think it is wrong of me to say you are not a Christian is this:

1. What makes you a Christian?

2. What makes anyone a Christian?

3. If you are unable to answer those questions, do you think that there is a standard for being a Christian?

Ummm your father mentioned me directly… sorry… And yes, Nathan, I hate to tell you… we are ALL believers…. even if we dont all fit into YOUR very small box of religious beliefs… That box that would have God changing the speed of light, so it could fit into your young earth theory…

See, GOD is not just omnipotent, and omnipresent, and omniscient… GOD is ETERNAL and INFINITE… not bound by time and space… Geez, 14.5 Billion years is but an eye blink for GOD… Eternity knows no such thing as TIME… Why try to confine God’s Infinite Presence into a little tiny box???

I mean, no matter how you slice and dice it, those stars out there are still millions of light years away, and we ARE seeing their light…. And that light didnt just start yesterday!!

Chas,

Would you call JR a believer too? What exactly does he believe? He flat out rejects the notion of God.

Are atheists believers in your view too? What exactly are they believers of?

Where did you make the false determination that I am a Unitarian?? Obviously, you dont know what Unitarians are, or you probably wouldnt say something like that…

Chas,

I completely agree with you on the Characteristics of God being Eternal, Infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and not bound by space or time.

I am not trying to confine God’s infinite presence into a tiny little box.

And once more, no where have I said that I think God has changed the speed of light.

Chas,

Fine. In the broadest meaning of the term, everyone is a believer.

By believer, that doesn’t mean in God though.

So, depedning on how each of is is using the term believer we are both correct. You are using it one way and I am using it another.

Chas,

Obviously nothing. I am good friends with a Unitarian and he and I argue all the time about religion and God.

If you are going to sit here trying to have a discussion about your faith, why are you so concerned with sharing what denomination you are a part of?

Honestly, the only reason I ask, is because as soon as you were to say it, you would reveal to me exactly what it is you believe and then I could probably tear you apart in a debate.

Instead you choose to be elusive and not answer any questions.

Chas,

How do you know how old those writings are?

Chas,

If my box is 10,000 years old, how old is your box?

I am just guessing, but I would have to guess that I have more years of biblical/theological study than you have YEARS… LOL Dont be too certain of your knowledge till you have been around a while!!

Chas,

I am sure that Satan has more years studying the scripture than I do as well. Doesn’t mean I give him great esteem when it comes to my questions about it.

Nathan, in case you missed it, I already answered your questions earlier… Read upthread….

Chas,

Reminder: You brought all this up. Not me.

I use only one standard in saying you are or are not a Christian. It is exactly what the Bible says too.

Of course there are many different denominations and doctrines and what not.

There is one core belief though, that makes someone a Christian. (which nearly all people who call themselves a Christian believe)

It is something which you refuse to answer on this blog.

Nathan
Posted January 14, 2008 at 2:43 am
Honestly, the only reason I ask, is because as soon as you were to say it, you would reveal to me exactly what it is you believe and then I could probably tear you apart in a debate.

Nathan, your arrogance is showing….again.

Isn’t Pride a deadly sin?

Apophis,

I apologize if I mistakingly thought you were an atheist.

So what is your belief then?

Nathan, Chas is a minister. To reveal his denomination would also reveal his identity and possibly subject his family and his congregation to harassment or disruption.

Leave it be, one should not be required to divulge personal information on the Blog if they choose not to.

BTW – A Christian is defined as someone who follows the teaching of Christ. End of story.

I see Nathan’s “God” kinda like Judge Smails in caddyshack. And I’ve never had any desire to join a country club that was too good for me.

Oops . . . I might be wrong about that.

Nevermind . . .