Not having a statistician son doesn’t give your opinion much scientific standing, does it? Maybe it was WTH.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:19 AM
Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.
and
<i>Not having a statistician son doesn
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:29 AM
lb, I think your laziness is endemic to your entire line of thinking…
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:31 AM
Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual.
Apologies. By deliberately falsely calling those exams populist, I am actually calling (smearing, actually) the compass as populist and indicative of everything pop culturalist.
In other words, its only claim to credibility is as a pseudointellectual parlor game. Fun, to be sure.
Sorry for having to dumb that up, but you didn’t seem to be getting the point.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:46 AM
1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test)
This is evidence that people are fuzzy on the concept. Could you be more obtuse?
2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact?
Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore? What are you saying? Do you know? I don’t. Multidimensionality requires at least two axes in a Cartesian system. Perhaps you could redesign it using polar co-ordinates or vectors. that would be interesting.
<i>3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:53 AM
And careless, obviously.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:56 AM
Luminous Beauty,
Good to see you here on this thread.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
Do you think the difference between “strongly agree” and “agree” is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?
Do you think that a simpler, cruder test with only “agree” or “disagree” is a valid option and worthy of consideration?
Do people change?
I think they can and do. Some for the better and some not.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 10:08 AM
From wikepedia:
The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one’s opponents actually offer. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
Present the opponent’s argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person’s arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent’s argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent’s argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion
It seems to me that merely asserting that something is ‘unscientific’ is about as weak an argument as one can make. Hard to make a straw man argument if that is the case. Prove me wrong if you can, or you aren’t too lazy.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 10:19 AM
Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore?
No, I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass, but completely destroys the whole point of pulling the LEFT/RIGHT divide on a thusly irrelevant axis.
The creator eliminates the whole point of the multidimensional spectrum.
Additional, and besides the point, that is yet another clear example of the failure of this questionnaire. What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
The compass fails to differentiate between charity and government. And anyone listening to the LEFT on that issue knows there is a vast difference.
My finding of unscientific rests on the blatant failures of this system. Had there been real science behind it (or even a modicum of common sense), such obvious failings would have been avoided.
The lower, libertarian hemisphere is divided into right libertarian and left libertarian.
The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?
<blockquote>You don
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Hi, David. Happy to be here.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
I think the results are different snapshots in time. As the variation is <1 the differences are probably insignificant.
<i>Do you think the difference between
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:14 AM
I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass…
It’s presumptive and dishonest to change the definition of the right pole to individual rights rather than individual competition, which is how they define it if you could read.
What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
According to the site, it can be either. Again with the reading comprehension.
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
No. It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views. Does the prospect scare you?
The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?
Libertarianism is obviously referring to the Libertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. I’m a left libertarian. Do you think you can call me on it? Why don’t you study the whole site instead of making foolish assumptions from such a casual reading?
(straw man) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Exactly.
Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son? Where am I critical of statisticians?
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:53 AM
Hi Luminous Beauty
I don’t like the simpler cruder test you linked either. They call the test ” The World’s Smallest Political Quiz ” and they are not exaggerating. Too simple and crude.
Thanks for your answers, as always, they were illuminating.
One of your answers had a thought that started me thinking on another tangent. I will think about it today and post my thoughts later. Thank you again.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:55 AM
Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 9:23 AM
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:55 AM
It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views.
Thus my objection to the questions and the map onto which the answers are plotted.
Why is voluntary collectivism a LEFT view co-opted by the RIGHT? To assume otherwise is to ascribe a libertarian view strictly to the RIGHT.
But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.
Again with the (selective-jc) reading comprehension.
Further,
Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son? Where am I critical of statisticians?
Through his alleged incompetence, which you presumed to be the only one with special knowledge of.
<blockquote>Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment. Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics? I didn
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Where your argument breaks down, WTH, is that these aren’t questions with a limited range of answers of which one may choose, they are statements to which one can agree or disagree. This removes the subjective bias for which the ordinary run of surveys, particularly the kind of push polls used in advertising and political campaigns, are so famously and justly susceptible. You might like to consult your son. Or a psychologist. Not because I think you’re crazy, you understand. To get a perspective on subjective bias that an advertising person, whose job as I understand it is to create subjective bias, might not have.
It’s a shame advertisers in Britain can’t use sex to get women drunk. I’m appalled. On the bright side, maybe old and bald will become the new ‘sexy’.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 12:44 PM
<i>But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.<>
To repeat myself, Libertarianism is obviously referring to the CapitalistLibertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?
Libertarian is one pole of a spectrum whose other end is Authoritarian. It’s the up/down spectrum, not the left/right spectrum. I can keep this up all day. We can see who throws up first.
<i> You don
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:24 PM
Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?
Absolutely. But this isn’t about my personal beliefs, but the legitimacy of the compass. If there are left libertarians, I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian?
The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:45 PM
Jay:
Perhaps you could send an email to the PC folks, and tell them you find the libertarian/libertarianism thing confusing. they just might change it to Randian Objectivism or some such. Or they might just laugh their asses off.
Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:48 PM
<blockquote> It doesn
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:52 PM
Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.
:)
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 1:53 PM
I think it might help if you understood the shaded italicized words Neo-Liberalism (libertarianism) are examples meant to clarify what is the actual label, i.e. ‘Right’. Right? Right.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:01 PM
” Or a psychologist ”
Maybe we all need to take some ink blot tests too !?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:15 PM
Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass…..If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn’t clarity in my book…
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:15 PM
Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research.
You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done.
Not really. More of a challenge to put up or shut up. I took the chance of being wrong, but I really liked the odds. Still do.
My error was in thinking you were the one with the statistician son. That you made the assertion of it being unscientific with zero, zip, zilch, nada argumentation for that assertion is well documented. Have you done the research and analysis? In this I believe have a more than high likelihood of being correct when I say, I didn’t think so.
Putting theory ahead of facts.</i>
Better than putting my head so far up my ass I see daylight.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:48 PM
<i>Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass…..If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 24, 2005 at 2:52 PM
ibertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.
No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
What’s your point?
(no facetious intent here, just an honest question).
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 24, 2005 at 4:46 PM
Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 2:44 PM
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 24, 2005 at 5:02 PM
This will be a three part post for clarity ....
Part One .... People do change. We do have free will.
Rabbit, I know you were mainly directing your words “towards the reluctant brides” .
And I am thankful for the opportunity to defend my position .... and their’s too, if it happens to be mine. Uppity and Irritated. All is always forgiven. Please forgive me.
But your words, some of them, were for me too. Here is an example that struck me :
Rabbit says: “He still cannot accept the implication that dishonesty is necessarily only changing from yes to no.”
Rabbit, that is not only my implication . It is my assertion on both counts.
Strong to mild and yes to no. BOTH.
People do change. We do have free will.
Maybe they don’t even know they were dishonest? Maybe they are being honest now? You insinuate that they are trying to alter the results to fit their personal fantasies. Should we be hooking people up to lie detector test when they answer? Or sending them to a psychologist for ink blot tests? How do you measure strong or mild? These are personal questions and the definitions applied are personal as well. My strong may be your mild. It is all subjective if you like.
People do have free will. The test did not make them what they are. They do.
In the final analysis : This is a self examination. Honesty and reasonableness is a given if we want to relate our results to one another. I am honest and trust that others are as well. If they are not ... what can I do except be, hopefully, a good example. Hope for the best and believe who you will, subjectively of course.
People do change. We do have free will.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 6:23 PM
Part Two ..... People do change. We do have free will.
More on the matter :
I ask Luminous Beauty : Do you think the difference between
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 6:24 PM
Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.
People do change. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
Defending people who seek better change for themselves.
Defending people who seek better change for others.
I would hope that if someone was wrong about something that those who are right about that something would be gracious enough to allow those who were wrong to join the right position.
Would those that are right tell those who were wrong they must remain wrong.?
Sorry, change is not allowed?
Sorry, carry on being ignorant and/or deluded?
Where is the free will?
Free will exists.
Live as if we do have free will (even if it is an illusion as some may suggest)
If not, we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do.
We must treat each other as if we do have free will.
If everyone is a No Free Will Sock Puppet why bother talking?
It leads to despair and dissillusionment.
I think that we are free, and I don’t think it is an illusion.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 6:26 PM
Whew, that is a lot of comment for me… and only one HTML mistake. I am learning.
Sorry if it went off onto a free will tangent but ..
I see people afraid to change. Afraid of the possibilty.
I see people who don’t think it is possible for others to change.
So I went on a bit of a rant.
And hopefully everyone changes for the better.
I Will Be Who I Will To Be.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 6:44 PM
Jay
Define real science.
To Rabbit who is a real scientist, or at least was, real science is open minded and tackles experimentation with a scientific attitude.
So far Rabbit analysis of the results has been real science by the definition which has served real scientists for some time now.
You are a pseudo-intellectual, and not a scientists anus. You are being patently subjective in all your criticisms and yet have failed to apply any of your criticisms to the actual question and how it relates to giving an invalid result. Has Jay read the FAQs? Would it help him? Probably not because they would require an objective analysis and Jay has an illness in this regard.
You really should stop insulting luminous Beauty who so very obviously possesses a mind which outshines your dim glow by many orders of magnitude. You do not look smarter being rude to superior people, you look even dumber, if that is possible.
You have as has been pointed out before refused to ever consider actual facts which relate to any of your opinions. If it is challenged you ignore the challenge. A good piece has been written which describes your type perfectly, Jay and it shall be re-posted after Rabbit has read the rest of the thread. This is coming from page 4, and Rabbit is about to flip the page. First he must just check something.
Showing off after Rabbit shows you had nothing which was more than ten minutes away on the net….....................sigh…....
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 7:06 PM
<frameset>WTH</frameset>
Rabbit agreed with your view about a different scale and still would rather see a finer scale than a cruder one.
Nonetheless I feel the questions are well selected and actually many are cleverly crafted to achieve the subtle separation between the various poles even including such apparently opposed opposing views which can and often are held by Leftists despite being generally viewed as right wing. Obviously the reverse and the other variations which could make every such reference to this format complex.
There are two main reasons I feel confidant saying this.
Firstly and this is personal you can take it or leave it. Rabbit is an unusually perceptive creature about others. He is quite used to being way ahead of everybody in one area, perception of “People”. this has been shown both on the internet where it is apparently only based on words, but lies or otherwise, all words carry there own meaning and so much about language is far far more than mere words. The order and choice of the words and so many other things can convey as much as the actual content of what the words were meant to convey. Not so much at a first meeting, but over time in a dialogue situation, even if that is an argument, often they are best.
So with this in mind Rabbit can say that the results appear consistent with reality as Rabbit percieves it. The evidence stands with Rabbit’s prediction of yourself and he as having very similar attitudes. It is only the perception of certain facts whgich separates you and I as people, broadly speaking. Rabbit would have initially expected to be more to the left and down, much more like Luminous Beauty, but was forced to accept something he already knew and that is Rabbit yet comes from a fairly conservative background and has never quite succeeded in jumping that last cliff into the abyss of Liberal and Anarchistic abandonment. Something he has watched a few of his friends achieve over the years, and somewhat wistfully. Instead after a brief sojourn on the road, rabbit settled down and had wife and kids..................................The point is Rabbit recognised the essential truth about his deepset attitudes which were reflected in the graph results….............................It becomes clearer and clearer the more results Rabbit has seen. Not the follow up testing people are doing, though that is only proving the thing more to Rabbit. It is impossible not to notice the varied reactions without excitement as a scientific mind. Provided of course one can examine the thing objectively, which is exactly what the problem is for Jay. he has already shown he has NO objectivity to speak of. It placed him exactly where he would be by Rabbit’s estimation too. Rabbit has always known he was following a fantasy version of Bush. He imagines Bush is a bit right of centre, as I said before, amd he also imagines that is where he should be. He is incapable at this point of approaching the thing rationally, or anything which clashes with his pre-conceptions.
Of course it must be remembered that WTH is also quite capable of doing this, but Rabbit feels that you may actually be fairly aware of the reasonable accuracy, or at least coming to realise it. The most telling thing which must speak in my favour for you to take me seriously has got to be my recent claims of our similarity, no?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 7:45 PM
The questions WTH has identified bear discussing in light of our differing views thinks Rabbit. This is exactly what must be done if there is any doubt about the validity. Methinks it is possible to clarify much beeter and if it is as good as rabbit thinks it is worth it. It is just one experiment. It produces an impartial set of results, the results say a lot if they are accurate, so the question is how accurate.
We have had all the generic criticisms of sampling and statistics so far but not enough actual analysis of the things to justify any of those criticisms.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 7:52 PM
First though Rabbit must clarify something with the David.
Rabbit has said from the start and it is good to clarify that we agree on this, that the test gives an accurate and valid set of data, for comparison.
When some, who obviously were perturbed by their results began to re-peat the test by deliberately changing the emphasis of their answers, and being so foolish as to claim they were now “happier” with their results, Rabbit pointed out that these results were worthless. For all the reasons he has since detailed. The point about dishonesty, which may or may not actually have been Rabbit’s actual word from the start, was clarified better by pointing out the subjects Tainted state as a test subject, the loss of objectivity in the experiment, the subject knows how to manipulate the result and whether or not he desires to, the result is scientifically invalidated for the purposes of the experiment. Set up a new experiment by all means, and then you will get a range of results which are specific to that individual, they will if repeated even show that person’s growth and development or Change over time.
Rabbit has not really been trying to say that people never change, and even when Rabbit used those exact words he included a caveat.
It all comes down to context. In the context of this experiment and it’s discussion, People do not Change. Sure their attitudes may have some re-adjustment, even in a short term, but in the context of this experiment, people are going to give a true and valid response, the first time at least.
End of specific Monk message.
The arguments about the actual questions and how some were hard to answer and soem would have liked more or less choice. Some had no responses to certain questions at all. The answer is staring you in the face without even reading the FAQs, people are all different and merely trying to place them on a linear scale has not been giving an accurate picture.
This is a three dimesionsional view, in a sense, and many of you are applying two dimensional thinking to it. Your critique of the questions balance is being given even without you have seen exactly how the questions are weighted. The fact that you had no answer to some questions, and were forced to make a best choice has been allowed for, it is still a valid result. You will have put the answer you were most comfortable with.
WTH you are right, it is possible to refine the test more. But what about it as it stands, have a look at the FAQs, have you? Rabbit has only had a glance, but he only saw confirmation of what he had figured. By all means show the thing to your son, but you sound quite capable of picking up what Rabbit is saying and seeing it in a clearer light.
It is not that one cannot criticise it and we should do so, properly, but rabbit wants to be sure you at least recognise the essential validity of the things before we look at the details because it is pointless to just have one trying to prove th test is valid and the other trying to prove it is not.
Rabbit proposes it is valid to a fair degree, it gives explainable results and consistent. If we can begin from here then try and quantify it’s accuracy, or otherwise.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 8:14 PM
Rabbit’s turn to be facetious.
WTH
<i>almost exclusively industrial accounts
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 8:25 PM
David
Rabbit has just finished reading your posts. It occurs to rabbit that you are talking about life and people in general and this is not nor ever was Rabbit’s point. It was always the experiment, and it’s application which Rabbit is trying to establish. YOU KNOW RABBIT DOES NOT believe people cannot change, why the hell else would Rabbit do what he does? You know he seeks CHANGE, but thgat is not what we were talking about. Rabbit is trying to discuss the validity of the experiment and you are trying to dicuss the eternal path of enlightenment. Nothing you are otherwise saying is Rabbit in disagreement with. He agrees with all you say about free will, and about choices and growth and actually Rabbit would disgree only to say that for the most part change is one way, very few souls actually change for the worse over a life time, most go forward in the long run.
But these things are out of context when discussing the results which people here now have gotten..
By the way rabbit has had Mrs Rabbit do hers and he is about to see her e-mail from this morning. Rabbit would think she is closer to Nelson Mandela than Ghandi. Probably Nortjh of Rabbit. She comes from the Northern Hemisphere and Rabbit from the South, so it would be appropriate.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 8:35 PM
David this final one is a rebuke.
Now Rabbit reads how you use Luminous Beauty’s words. You did not ask those things of Luminous Beauty in context and you are not quoting them in context.
within the very quote you used are the following which can be used in this context
<b>change of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results.<b>
Which was what was Rabbit’s point from the start.
Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.
If a person is incapable of answering most of those questions within a fair degree of accuracy of their own positions, the first time, how can knowing how the test results looked and thus being able to alter the results going to make a more useful answer?
tch tch tch….............^^..............
David the test was as you have repeatedly, said most accurate the first time, why do you still want to say that if Jay wants to change his result that that is OK too? Dude, Rabbit agrees Jay is free to do whatever he wants with his result…....................... but as far as Rabbit, ........and anybody, including you, by your own stated beliefs…......will consider his first result to be the best picture of him as a person, here and now.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 8:47 PM
Rabbit has ben calling them questions out of habit but now wishes to correct, Statements with which we agree, or disagree, not questions.
This is a critical thing about it which impressed rabbit and he forget even to mention it and fell into the silly trap of calling them questions too.
The definition is important.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:39 PM
To quote Luminous Beauty, who has said this more clearly than Rabbit, .........If there is any inherent imbalance in those results you would have to look at the weighting of the results for each response and at the calculating algorithm
That is where any criticism must begin, not poking about with generalities about testing methods most of which are taken care of by the scientific process by which the test is constructed. Most if not all of the criticisms people have raised are adequately answered in the FAQs. Maybe not adequate for some people, but is anything enough to convince some?
If only these people were capable of reading a paragraph and picking out the main ideas, and challenging them, instead of the format used, or semantics or some general trick of avoidance of the real issues.
You can start by saying that the US presence in Iraq is making things worse than they ever were, and instead of looking at how things were, in detail and comparing to now, in detail, they end up using WWII or the French Revolution to illustrate their contention that Iraq has never been so well off.
Obviously this is an example and not intended to chjange the subject, which is what it all boils down to. People would too often rather change the subject than admit error.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:48 PM
Yes Rabbit,
Life in general.
That is why the Trilogy on Four Parts. 2 parts this, 1 part that, and 1 part ??
I acknowledged the tangent of the rant.
I am not sure if it was out of context? If it was for you I apologize again. My words were mostly facetious but serious as well. As much to you as to others. Your words provided the opportunity for it. I am glad that you and I know people can change. We have illustrated it for them.
Luminous Beauty,
I read your subsequent posts and hope you read my previous posts on the thread for the context. My questions had a simple context of their own though. So did LB’s answers.
I shamelessly asked Luminous Beauty ,specifically, the same questions I was asking every one rhetorically. I ask, get answer, in context or not. Rabbit said he hoped others would weigh in on the discussion. My questions stand.
I trust that Luminous Beauty would not let my impertinence stand if it was perceived. LB : Your thoughts please?
Yes Rabbit. Let them do what they will. I do stand byt the original results as the best result now. But with a little wriggle room. It was a good test for the reasons you and I and Luminous Beauty have all stated.
Jiggling the watch to see how it works is all I am doing
Curious Dave
PS The experiment is us…and I too think the flow of enlightenment is mostly one way ... for the better.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 10:14 PM
“Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.”
Yes Rabbit, The second go at HONEST results . Please do not forget that as I have said my second resluts were an experimant. The experiment being answering “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.
I hope that if anyone is changing their HONEST RESULTS that it is that ... HONEST.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 10:23 PM
Mrs Rabbit
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00
A little North, yes, Mandela. Good guess.
She is a clever economic numbery girl by the way.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 24, 2005 at 11:26 PM
<blockquote>libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.
No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
What
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2005 at 6:51 AM
David,
“Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.”
This reminds me of the only agrument with my wife that I can remember winning.
She said, “People do not change.”
Then I reminded her, “I used to be much nicer.” and she agreed.
I guess I showed her!
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:00 AM
luminous beauty,
Yes, STATEMENTS
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:08 AM
Rabbit,
My comment:
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:30 AM
WTH:
Question with inherent bias: Did you know WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast?
Statement without implicit bias: WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.
For the record I disagree, but only because I have no evidence to indicate otherwise.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 25, 2005 at 9:39 AM
Posted by luminous beauty on October 25, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:01 AM
luminous beauty,
“WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.”
———————-
If this survey were better written you could at least be sure that with my numbers in the lower left quad, I would not be a fascist. The rest would till be an open question.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:08 AM
luminous beauty,
Unless, of course, I lied to the survey, to myself and to you.
(Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any “FACTS” coming from the internet.)
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:11 AM
I think lb just proved I am indeed a troll.
I still don’t get it.
A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit, except when it is a hareball for Fluffy.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:26 AM
Jay:
A rabbit may be rabbit-like, but rabbit-like is not a rabbit.
Get it?
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:31 AM
Explicitly:
Adherents of Libertarianism (a rightist political movement) may all be libertarians, but not all libertarians are adherents of Libertarianism.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 25, 2005 at 11:43 AM
So, the website is dealing with fuzzy definitions, then.
Funny, I thought I already made that point in my original critique.
Q: When is a libertarian not a Libertarian?
A: Exactly!
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Nothing fuzzy about it, Jay, except the surface of your cerebral cortex. Your mind is on vacation, but your mouth is working overtime. Give it up, already. If you do have anything closely resembling an even tangential valid point it is pathetically trivial, to be generous. There is nothing more obvious than that we both could be doing better things with our time.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 25, 2005 at 12:17 PM
Apology accepted.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 25, 2005 at 12:45 PM
Luminous Beauty, Do I owe you an aplogy for my possible impertinence when I dragged you into the discussion Rabbit and I were having?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 25, 2005 at 1:23 PM
Jay, you’re welcome.
David, not at all. I didn’t have to jump in. I did try to toe a line between you guys. I’m happy you two have repaired your little contretemps. Hopefully it will serve as model for some of the folks here, on how rational beings resolve their differences.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 25, 2005 at 1:58 PM
Thankyou for not Blockquoting.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 1:30 AM
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
That’s about where I would have guessed. Not a flame-on capitalist but distrustful of many collectivist forms, wanting many areas of life to be beyond authority or others’ votes. Not a bad estimate.
Some of the questions were loaded as hell… so many assumed correlations of meaning and values. Several were quite irritating.
For what it’s worth…
Posted by Kuya on Oct 26, 2005 at 1:32 AM
WTH
IMO they will get a subjective reponse.
Of course they will, we want a subjective response from the sunject, WTH.
We must not have the subjects awareness of the outcomes affecting their response precisely because their respknse is unavoidably subjective.
Once we have completed the test, we can stand outside and make an objective analysis, if we are able. The alternative is to remain locked within a subjective outlook, failing to recognise the significance of the overall results, for want of comprehension. As such one is merely unable to remove onseself to an objective viewpoint, it doesn’t alter the test results or its validity, only the subjects outlook can change, from subjective reaction, to an objective viewpoint, which is always a challenge mentally, only humans can normally do it. .............I am a magic Rabbit…........look back at my results, I was at first a bit dismayed, but consideration of the broader picture, (others can read the FAQs for the same effect), made it much clearer.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 1:40 AM
WTH ............Rabbit was not being mean to WTH, as one who has seen more than enough of businessmen, entrepreneurs, and bordrooms, my comment is about the people who usually inhabit them, it was facetious but not intended to be malicious.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:14 AM
<i>Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:24 AM
Rabbit is not too sure what this word was meant to be either>
antrths
We shall call it lies…....... Maybe it was untruths….......yes.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:45 AM
You’re welcome
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 26, 2005 at 9:42 AM
lb,
sorry. I meant that to be in response to Rabbit’s admonishment on blockquoting.
sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 26, 2005 at 10:39 AM
Jay, think nothing of it. It’s your confusion, not mine, anyway.
Just to be clear, this is a response to your response to my response to your response to Rabbit’s admonishment on block quoting.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 26, 2005 at 10:58 AM
I have to admit I find you fascinating, Jay. At least in an anthropological way. You are not an unintelligent or completely witless person, yet in intellectual debate you display less a fundamental grasp of reason and logic than the average Borneo tribesman. If you were to show the same level of cognition in your ordinary life you undoubtedly would represent a grave risk to yourself and others.
It does seem a be a recurrent characteristic in many of those who identify themselves with the conservative movement. Particularly those who like to make themselves obnoxious on left-wing websites. I can’t decide whether it is a conscious absurdist strategy intended to inflict confusion and disarray in the ranks of what you see as the enemy (troll), or whether you actually are attempting to engage in honest and genuine debate to the best of your abilities (truth-seeker). Maybe a mixture of the two?
It does not make much difference to me. You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills and to focus my life’s experience of thinking and laboring in the field of life’s trenchant problems. For that, I wish to extend my most sincere and genuine thanks and gratitude. No irony intended, honest.
In any case, I sincerely believe you should take a ‘fresher course in Logic and Rhetoric. It would make you a better foil, anyway (This time don’t sit in the back of the class and trade snarky notes with your geeky friends, OK).
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 26, 2005 at 12:07 PM
“You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills..”
... and sharpen your wit too. Both of you.
Anyone who can make me laugh scores points with me.
Thank you all.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 26, 2005 at 2:21 PM
To Jay
Your acknowledgement, of Rabbit’s request, is very much appreciated. In fact by so doing, you have put Rabbit in the invidious position of having to apologise to you…... again…........eew…..................^>..................
Rabbit was not very polite, and this was partly a consequence of carry over distaste from previous times, and partly due to Rabbits assumption that you would ignore the request. Thank you, and Rabbit would like to announce that Jay Cline is the inspiration which brought all of us, finally crawling up from the mud of HTML ignorance. ........Hooray for Jay.
Rabbit still votes decidedly against smilies and anything really which detracts from simple straighforward discussion.
Every step forward should be reviewed if it despoils the environment.
Rabbit stands self rebuked but happy…...................^^.................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 26, 2005 at 10:22 PM
I absolutely agree with this article. Republicans can easily paint Democrats as “pure politicians”, trying to cater to whatever the public wants, because of their inability to take firm stands on issues. Then the GOP can look like the party of principle. HA.
What I don’t understand, is the comments here referring to the 1960s Civil Rights legislation almost as if it were too liberal because it lost the South.
This is extremely frightening. If Democrats shy away from such legislation because of political fears, the country is in trouble: how are we supposed to move forward?
What is needed is an “information source” that can spread the Liberal message and combat the poison that is constantly being planted by Rove & Co.
Posted by kmg36 on Oct 27, 2005 at 2:52 AM
Well what do you know, Government Accounting Office confirms key key 2004 stolen election findings.
Is this the way the way Democracy works is it?
Just as well as it wasn’t a democrat who stole the election by fraud, now that would be a crime.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 27, 2005 at 2:56 AM
kmg36
These sites and the internet in generall is all there is, use it well and pass the news on.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 27, 2005 at 3:00 AM
Here’s your big example to the world Scorpy and Jay and WTH.
According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received “more than 57,000 complaints” following Bush’s alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.
The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”
The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O’Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.
————-From above link
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 27, 2005 at 3:04 AM
Rabbit,
I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet is true.” I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet can be proven.”
As a matter of practice I seldom say “never”
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 28, 2005 at 2:23 PM
It is not the beliefs which need to be the same, Rabbit of all people is most open to new ideas. If your ideas are different to mine about the same thing then the dicussion is worthwhile and mutually beneficial.
If however we have different ideas because we have different facts upon which to base those ideas, then the FACTS are the thing which can and must be agreed upon. If those facts can be established, then to not do so where there is disagreement is avoidance, and it is recognisably the only way in which people with your views can indulge in dicussion with people who challenge your world view.
You are sadly blind to your own blinkered condition, and it is incredibly weird to see otherwise rational people behaving like it. It is recognisable more and more as a condition, common to an increasingly isolated group of people who denying the entire world beyond their program.
If misquotes or mis-information is included in a source somebody gives, then the rational thing to do, is to show this is so, with better information. It is irrrational to refuse to consider anything within a source as unreliable merely on the strength of your argument. You are being generic when it is spceifics which count. When we make a generic comment you prefer then to find specifics which are exceptions, which is not the point either. Generalities are fine, in their place.
If you say you support the WAR in Iraq, because it is reducing terrorism, you have given your opinion, and a supposed fact upon which you base your thinking.
If Rabbit then says he does not support the war, that is Rabbit’s opinion, and is not a refutation of itself. If however Rabbit challenges the fact upon which your opinion is based; <i>ie The War in Iraq is increasing the number of Terrorists and world Terror acts., then this becomes a refutation of your fact, and IT DOES MATTER. If it does not matter to you that your facts are wrong, then even reasonable people like Rabbit and others here, will simply call you names, because anybody who does not care about accuracy and yet who would waste others’ time with nothing but biased opinions, is only worth calling names.
Now to simply say either of the above claims, is in itself only a statement, and as you say of no value in proving anything.
So Rabbit then says the war is increasing the number of terrorists and terror and he provides a number of newspaper articles which refer to documents or speaches by notables which refer to the fact that terrorism is increasing. Rabbit then posts links to reports from various organisations, who have verifiable lists of the terrorist actions and relative numbers. Rabbit maybe also posts links to reports about CIA and other intelligence organisations making similar claims. These things are what would typically be considered sources for such a claim and upon reading them, WTH would have a choice to believe or not to believ what he is reading. If he reads something he does not believe, and gives a reason why not, then it should not be too hard for Rabbit to better verify the fact or even agree with WTH as it may happen that the particular fact is unverifiable or even questionable.
It could be that WTH could find something which says there are lots less terrorists and terror attacks today thjan ever before and we would look at that.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 28, 2005 at 8:08 PM
If however it became apparent that Rabbit has a case for there being more terrorism now, then WTH would in all fairness, then be expected to re-visit his opinions, based upon this fact. You may yet have other reasons which buttress your support for the war, but you would at least no longer be able to claim that the war in Iarq reduces terrorism. You may still have the opinion for other reasons, which hopefully you will also put on the table, but if facts begin to accumalate which collectively abolish your reasons for believing the war is righteous, the a rational being would re-evaluate those beliefs in as open minded way as possible.
The regular claims by you and others that Rabbit loves Muslims or that Rabbit hates America, are nothing but emotional accusations and they have no basis in anything Rabbit has ever said. Just because Rabbit has as a referee to say that America is at fault, does not mean he is bised towards America. Just because he says Muslims don’t deserve to be demonised because of a minority of extremists doesn’t make Rabbit biased. Just because Rabbit says that a minority of xetremists have taken over America, does not mean he considers all Americans to be reflected by those extremists. The sheer ignorance and hypocrisy of that crowd is represented magnificantly by George W Bush, and it is regrettable to find so many peope who are just like him and just as bad as all the caricatures of Americans. You WTH are borderline, only marginally free of being so deluded.. Do you think it is easy to speak thus to someone? It is not. At this stage you have earned Rabbit’s respect, because you have shown the courage to come this far, but there is no easy way to tell someone they are so wrong about some things that they are actually supportinmg something which inm reality is the antithesis of everything they believe.
An important clue which has been offerred before is this.
Your position is supported by a fast shrinking margin, it is gaining no new supporters and has not since it’s inception. Rabbit by this means polls in USA. Those who believe as we others do, we so-called lefties, which is not so simple now as we know., our numbers are swelling fast. Every day now we are seeing people who have finally opened their eyes and that is how they see it themselves. The most common comments from them are, “all this time I thought I knew what was going on, now I realise the truth. everything has changed for me” Now that might sound scary and it probably is. Rabbit has had thirty years to get used to the ideas which are now occurring to many more people, and so hasn’t felt, “safe” for a long time.. Used to living in an uncertain world means maybe Rabbit is a bit immune to the beastliness.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 28, 2005 at 9:06 PM
Rabbit does not want to prove his beliefs.
WTH Rabbit only wants to prove certain facts upon which those beliefs are based, where it seems we have differing views of the facts as outlined above. If we can agree on facts and yet have different ideas, that is fine and it is a lot more common among open minded people than you may imagine. Curious Dave and I have very different attitudes in some ways and we don’t agree on several things. If you pay attention though, we do agree on facts, or when we don’t we will establish them and then decide. The same can be said of most of us. Rabbit has disagreed about some things with others and they with Rabbit, but the sort of facts we base our “different” opinions on, are generally agreed upon, or we set out to achieve that.
Again the comparison is that we already know what you know about things, but you don’t know what we know in addition. everytime one of us tells you that there is more to a particluar story or history you get your back up. Do you sriously think you know everything there is to know about each subject? Then why do you refuse to look at any new information?
The new info might not turn out to be solid, it may not check out, and if you can show this, we would all be gratefull. The information which we choose to impart, and defend, however is things we will ourselves already have questioned and researched so don’t be surprised if most of it checks out. ignore the cries of Shills and Trolls who are always attacking sources and never the content, that is their bread and butter. Many of the Shills cannot even access many of the sites we give as references because they are kept shielded from certain truth by their servers. They never admit this, anm so have a blanket rule of ignoring things and of generic attacks on sources. This is precisely what the programmed sheeple do so they can easily hide their dishonesty among all the confusion.
It is inevitable that new information will lead to your opinions changing, but that is not my goal I swear. I want only for the truth to be accepted and then for all to make up their own minds. That is in contrast to having their minds made up for them by selective propaganda.
Don’t throw that back at Rabbit either he is not being selective, he is advising you to look at as much info as possible, not just selected sources. Rabbit is prepared to look at anything you have and defend anything satisfactorily or give it up. How open and rational is that?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 28, 2005 at 9:23 PM
Lastly WTH when you are ready to get into the damned car, and buckle up, we have a short but awesome trip into the unknown to undertake.. List your objections to Rabbit’s outlook, if you feel you have devined it and allow him to defend his position based on facts, which will be established or abandoned as the case may be. You have only to challenge Rabbit on the facts, and if he cannot give a GOOD reason for adhering to them you will recieve an acknowledgement of this if not a complete reversal of opinion. Rabbit has no fear of any test of his opinions, and he knows that WTH has soon no choice but to put his own to the test too. Rabbit has no choice but to admit the whole thing is for him a forgone conclusion. Rabbit knows WTH belongs to us. None would believe it but Rabbit knows that WTH is on the brink of realisation, and when the penny drops it is going to sound like distant thunder, to the alert.
WTH is more than he seems, a whole generation or at least a portion of them are connected to WTH by their very essence. He is one of those kids who picked on the Rabbit as a strange youngling, but only in a peripheral sense. He is not one who led, but rather who joined in, but never quite knew why. Today WTH is OLDER, like rabbit he has many summers and many battles under his belt. But in some ways, we are not so far removed from that playground when we found ourselves separated by the crowd who knew not what they were doing or saying.
Are they really any more clued in today, now that they have grown up?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 2:16 AM
Rabbit said,
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 29, 2005 at 7:13 AM
And here you are back to safe and quite useless generalisations.
All of your generalisations are of no use if you can’t put them to any use to help you understand anything. There is so much information that is lost to you, and you are wasting your time around here with that attitude. You will constantly face being called ignorant, your opinions will face ridicule because they are often based on patent falsehoods, and your only answer to being proven wrong, and you have been on numerous issues, is to say nothing can be proven. Rabbit cannot hold the branch of peace forever, and a greedy hypocritical nation of warmongers cannot fail to be called one if it cannot mend it’s ways.
if Rabbit was to turn to the sort of un-referenced hyperbole as you, he could speak far more of Extremist elements who decide American Imperial foreign policy, the Fundamentalist Religious Zealots who attack Muslim Nations on the strength of fraud and lies, to steal their OIL. It is also true that the President of the United States is the son of a Pedophile, has WTH heard of the details of that? What are details to WTH so we’ll just let the statement stand. America is the main reason that there is lots of Cheap Heroin back on the streets. Thanks to America reversing the Taliban’s clampdown on Heroin trafficking, thanks to DIRECT US support of the industry it is now flourishing again. Well hell, why not. Heroin is the USA stock in trade when it comes to making lots of fast bucks which need to be kept below the radar. Can anyone say “Golden Triangle”? And George Herbert Bush and CIA all in one sentence? The Rabbit will make a point of spouting lots of unqualified opinions for the benefit of WTH, and making reference to historical events, in as irresponsible a way as WTH thinks right. No arguing with Rabbit now WTH. You have set the standard. You can say anything you want, and Rabbit is n ot going top challenge anything you wish to babble on about. The Rabbit will in return not feel obligated to observe his usual measure approach. You cannot just say Rabbit is wrong of course and ahve it mean anything, for Rabbit is telling the truth as he knows it. Of course, unlike WTH Rabbit will be happy to provide references for anything which he claims as a fact, and unlike WTH Rabbit can defend his ideas.
In the meantime, the USA was behind the Lockerbie Bombing, and the Israeli’s are believed to have carried out the attck on the USS Cole
Europe is not confronting any threats in any backyards, where do you get your rubbish. There is no threat in Europes backyard, no fundy Muslim groups have been causinmg any trouble in Europe. The biggest terrorist threat in Europe is NEO-Nazis.
Of course everyone knows that it was agents of the Spanish police who pulled off the Madrid bombings, and it was the news of this which cost the Spanish Government the election, everyone except most Americans of course.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 8:14 AM
It is also likely the London bombings were done with BOMBS under the trains, not in backpacks as was claimed. It is certain that at least one of the four alleged “Bombers” is still alive and well and was not in England at the time it happened.
Bush knew the WTC’s were coming down before the first plane hit. He gave away his foreknowledge in an interview later, claiming to have been watching the first plane hit the buildings on TV and then the second one.
It is so easy to just spout off unverified nfacts. The thing is of course there are many on this site who already know much about thses things and know quite well that most of what Rabbit has just been saying is factual and verifiable. So if it ever feels like people are talking over your head WTH, speaking of things of which you know nothing, don’t be too worried, it is nothing except our opinions being different to yours. It has to do with the strange way people like us go about discerning things research, debate and open minds. Nothing to concern yourself with. You really are going to have a very unsatisfactory experience overall though, and this is too bad. You shall reap what you sow.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 8:14 AM
It would seem that WTH is only willing to listen to rock hard rigorously deductive arguments supported by verifiable reproducible evidence. His only use for inductive reasoning, it would seem, is to show that inferences cannot be absolutely proven in the above fashion. This is a naive and disingenuous view. What he is saying in effect is; since you cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if it has risen every morning since time immemorial, then one is in error for believing it will come up tomorrow. It is not immaterial to point out that the sun doesn’t actually ‘rise’, but that the rising of the sun is the apparent artifact of the earth’s rotation on it’s axis.
It’s also evident that much of WTH’s opinions are based on inferential beliefs that he has never thought deeply about, but is irrationally and stubbornly resistant to bring into question. Opinions that are objective barriers to the potential growth of his understanding and wisdom.
In particular his shallow, simplistic and a-causal belief that there is an existential conflict between ‘radical Islam’ and the ‘rest of the world’. He appears poorly informed about the complex, social, cultural and political history and nature of ‘radical Islam’ and it’s context in the Islamic world. He shouldn’t be selectively taking as gospel the spew of some ‘radical Islamists’ (not what he himself considers a reasonable assumption according to his above rant.), nor assume those who share his peculiar construction of reality constitutes the ‘rest of the world’.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 29, 2005 at 8:17 AM
There might once have been a muslim fundamentalist attack on American soil and there might be another one or even a first one, one day. In the meantime there are daily bombings and shootings of innocenty Muslkims going on by US troops. You have killed At least 150, 000 innocent civilians so far and and possibly twice that number, not to mention the radiation and poisoning from Depleted Uranium, for the rest of time in Iraq. All this because Somebody killed 3000 mostly Americans. Somebody did it and soembody had to pay. Never mind if the ones who pay are not involved, so lonmg as they are Muslims, the stupid Americans can be convinced they are somehow a threat.. That’s right a country with a Military Budget bigger than the combined budgets of the next twenty countries on the list. YET such a brave country of “World Policemen” actually live in fear of some of the weakest countries on the planet. They live in such abject and belly crawling fear that they are prepared to suspend all conventions on human rights, as well as use torture and killing of jouirnalists to keep things humming along. A country that is taking the killing of inmnpocent civilians to an industrial level. How can such a powerful nation be afraid of such poor and weak people. To hear you gutless wonders bleating about A bomb going off inside America any moment, as if ONE bloody bomb is going to bring your whole democracy crashing down in ruins. Maybe what you havbe is so fragile there is some truth to this.
In the meantime you big World Superheroes, the Iraqis don’t have to wonder if they are going to be getting any bombs dropped on their heads. They can be pretty sure that they will be getting bombed and shot at on a daily basis for a long time yet, and there are no maybes about it.
Twenty times the combined budgets of the next twenty nations….......................And still scared of its own shadow.
Whatever you guys are on, we keep telling you, we don’t want any. You keep on fighting the bogeymen, and just hope you can keep killing them at an exponential rate, because statistics are that for every civilian you kill you are getting two more insurgents committing to the cause. They are getting more and more pissed off and better armed. They will eventually spread out and come get you back in America. It is easy to get across the US border, Bush has opened it up to all comers it appears.
The more the worlds biggest yellow belly nation lashes out insanely at others, the more you are going to have to fear. Already America has become a despised and loathed nation, you cannot continue down the current path and not eventually come into conflict with the majority of the world’s people. It is so obvious that you guys are cruisin for a bruisin, and Rabbit thinks it can only be the intention. Nobody at world leader level could seriously expect the USA to create more enemies, destabilise the Middle East anymore and survive the blowback. You will not be the first nation to have lost its army in the sands of the middle east.
It takes a special kind of fool to have lost as much as George Bush has in five years. Lost the surplus, lost the environment, lost the country’s respect and standing in the world. Lost the Army and the country’s morale. Lost a city, and now it looks like he’ll lose the empire, all in a days work for the Shrub.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 8:39 AM
Rabbit says,
“Bush knew the WTC
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 29, 2005 at 9:18 AM
WTH:
I also was watching at the time, so I guess that must prove in your twisted reasoning that I was in on the WTC attack also.
Do you claim you saw the first plane hit? That would only prove that you aren’t too observant. Something already proven.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 29, 2005 at 9:58 AM
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments here :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
Attention all War Mongers and Attention all Peace Lovers
and Attention all Those Who Are On The Fence :
The linked thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 29, 2005 at 2:14 PM
You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited. You saw this later, but at the initial time the first plane strike was not on TV, the video footage for this event came in later. The second crash was on TV, before the first was shown in video.
Of course for people who understand sourcing Rbbit would now post a link to the “proof” of this, but we already know that WTH lives in a completely theoretical unprovable universe, so for WTH the mere statement of this fact is all there is.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 10:25 PM
What this proves WTH is that you are of a shallow and inferior mindset, and are failing even now to comprehend the links between dots so close. As Luminous Beauty is alluding to, and as Rabbit can confirm at least from here on the “other half” of the ball we call earth, the attacks were shown on TV my small minded friend, but in the order of Second plane and much later the first plane. Bush says he saw the first plane hit the WTC, then he saw the second Plane.
Those who have realised the significance of this, in combination with other details, for the doubters, have revisited G W Bush on Video tape for those critical few minutes and have come to the unavoidable conclusion this guy knew about the news before it was given. He was not being given the news in first hand, although the timings show it was within minutes of the first strike, it is so obvious that he has just been given “news” of something which had been awaited in trepidation and which was of momentous import, it is wild. Bush looks like a kid caught with his hand in the cooky jar for several minutes.
Nobody needs sources for this of course?
Hey David…..........Ding Dong the witch is dead,......... The wicked witch is dead…............
DU thread is dead, Rabbit was penning a poem to Curious Dave when the Seamus he struck with his magical stave, and shut down the debate from Hell.
Hooray…............................^^.............................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 10:49 PM
Gues what WTH you have inadveratntly stumbled across something which destroys your case about internet and proof.
It is entirely possible to prove that the second plane crash was shown first on TV and the First plane crash much later. You see this then proves especially in combination with other evidence, that GWB was expecting the news. That he lied and by the way it can also be shown that the “special” press conference in which he announcd the attacks, was booked the day before the attacks.
WE CAN PROVE IT WTH, We kmow it is true. It is so well documented that Rabbit is referring to these “unheard of facts” (for you anyway) as if they were common knowledge. Rabbit is not co-ordinating any effort against WTH here, he is stating what is known to be facts among informed people with complete faith that the majority will already know what he is talking about.
They would ask for links if they doubted and Rabbit would provide all the sourcing necessary. WTH of course lives in a cartoon world where everything is made up like in the movies so nothing can be proven or relid on.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 29, 2005 at 11:00 PM
Rabbit says,
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 30, 2005 at 6:09 AM
Fine WTH, but the whole point of this fact is that Bush claimed he saw the first plane strike, then he claimed to see the second strike.
Also when he is told by an aide, of the attack, sitting in front of a classromm, on video, the truth is quite apparent.
The aide leans in, whispers in Bush’s ear and imediately moves away. Supposedlt that ws the first Bush knew about it, and yet the aide didn’t even wait for a reply. Others with Rational minds and open eys, realsie this means Bush was not being informed of an unexpected event, otherwise, why does he sit for so long and do nothing? Why does nobody even expect him to do anything?, and why is he not being rushed into secure protection?
WTH, the debate is moving into areas of facts and speculation about what they mean, it is probably not a good idea you stick with this, because you won’t actually be able to kepp up. Just assume these are our “unprovable ideas”, and you have yours, and you don’t need to confuse yourself.
You may either believe Bush was steering the ship of state by powers of telepathy or you may believe nobody really knows if it was Bush in the Video maybe. Who knows what you believe? Who cares? Bush obviously knew the attacks were coming, and staff close to him certainly knew something too. Why wasn’t he being rushed off to safety by secret service?
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 30, 2005 at 5:05 PM
Rabbit says,
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 31, 2005 at 7:34 AM
WTH, good point.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Now we can try to determine just how stupid the Bush Administration would have to be to explain all these pesky unanswered questions.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:44 AM
WTH as usual jumping beofre looking. So full of preconceptions he is incapable of ratuional discussion.
You are basing your conclusion that Bush had advanced knowledge on the above! Oh, boy!
Rabbit really feels sorry for you sometimes WTH. You are such a dummy and yet you try so hard.
Rabbit is not basing aby opinion on this one fact. Rabbit has always been prepared to ascribe the same factors you do to Bush’s reaction and words, as a matter of fact. Trouble is my poor information starved friend, it is NOT the only evidence of Bush’s pre-knowledge.
Now shall we stick with the fact that Rabbit was “RIGHT” that Bush could not have seen the first plane hit, and shall we also rememeber the rest of the above post, which also provideds a much more compelling case for his foreknowledge. Any rational person would have seen the point being made and frankly only a Bush Lover could actually have avoided the obviopus conclusion you are able to satisfy yourself with. Problem is WTH that you have expressed a theory to explain Bush’s words, in this one example, now what about the pattern of him being told as referred to, or would you like to question the FACT again?
\
You see my newchum thinker, the process of informing oneself does not go , NEW FACT followed vby new theory. It goes with NEW FACTS being accumalated untill they create a plausible theory. So no jumping the gun with your gutless need to have an answer to everything as quick as a blink.
Nor os the rection and the pattern of actions give all the evidence by which Rabbit and many others conclude Bush knew beforehand. We have about twenty different facts which all collectively suggest the same thing, that is why. But for now, a dittohead is best to stick to gleaning facts and leaving the opinions until you have enough information that they mighjt be of some value.
for someone who is so sure Reality is hard to prove, you seem in a big hurry to crreate Opinions out of nothing.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 9:49 PM
Too bad about your perception of Rabbit as smug, for he is. This is Finally someone who get’s a criticism of Rabbit right…...........................SMUG….
Yes Rabbit is somewhat Smug in his knowledge but if you will notice that many other people on this site are in agreement with Rabbit about the things he is “Smug” about, this might not seem to be such an insult. If facing an opponent who has demostrated he has but a tenth of the information as you, and if you are completely confidant of your own case, then I’m sorry WTH it is hard noy to feel smug. In fact, it is a natural part of Rabbit’s personality that he is constantly trying to take the edge off his, “smugness” and softening the blows as much as possible. It was inevitable that a relatively smart opponent would finally pick up on this one and there at least two more criticisms which could viably be launched against Rabbit, which nobody has picked up on yet. Congratulations on a home run WTH and Rabbit had already put his money on you being the one who would finally get one where Rabbit is concerned.
You are falling way short of the mark by claiming that these few details of “Objective Analysis” of the “Subject” of George W Bush at the critical moments are ALL. by which we have based the opinion that he had foreknowledge. No WTH this was just FACTS, and we have about another dozen of varying importance alone which in combination give credence to our theory that Bush was being informed that things were happening according to foreknowledge.
We are examining facts which collectively point to one conclusion, and which also point away from the official LIE. There is no hurry to assume we have presented all the reasons why we have our opinions, that is your way, not ours. You see, rabbit and others like him, place a much higher price on their opinions as you. It is odd when one considers that someone like you is much more inclined to live or die on a particular opinion, it is you who will defend your opinion in the face of reasoning and facts, not us. Either of the above are enough to cause any of us to relingquish an opinion. Yet we will not necessarily adopt a new opinion, as you seem determined is the way. We may just prefer to accumalate facts and ideas before committing ourselves, a subtlety lost to you clowns. All you would be doing at this point if you were as rational as the majority of us, is accumalating facts and trying to compare your pre-conceptions with them. Just because you have about six imagined “facts” in your head about 911, don’t assume that we don’t have about -100- facts apiece and ours are all verifiable facts. Your “facts” are in the final anaysis only opinions. Facts exist which completely obliterate any of those opinions from being valid and thus there is no hurry to assume you have faced all there is about anything just from the first fact or two.
First Fact was that the statements of behaviour and actions of Bush were consistent with him having foreknowledge. Got it? Rabbit is smug about this, because it is. The FACTS we have just established, via your acceptance, actually we didn’t link to sources even, are that Bush didn’t show expected surprise and his staff didn’t expect any orders from him afetr giving the advice. we acn see that he was not conscidered to be in danger, which is also odd, in the first few minutes off such attacks, when before and sicne that day, a single airplane out of its flight path saw hime being evacuated,a and under major security.
WTH, if you don’t mind Rabbit would like to claim three specific facts above which are consistent with foreknowledge.
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 10:57 PM
He claimed he saw the first hit. He was given a one way communique about the attcks. he was not placed under any special security precautions. 1….............2…...........3
Three bits of evidence he knew beforehand. Ready for three more WTH? These are actually only circumstantial, there is much better
Posted by Rabbit on Oct 31, 2005 at 11:05 PM
Rabbit said,
“You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 1, 2005 at 7:15 AM
Rabbit has avoided nothing WTH. You admitted thought I that you didn’t see the first Plane crash before the second.
The point here is simply that Bush said he saw the first plane going into the WTC, which neither he, nor you could at that time have seen.
You are the one being stubborn. You have altered nothing about what has been written. Why do you go on about the first hole, we are talking about the plane actually crashing.
I can tell you you could not have seen the first plane going in, because nobody saw this on TV until later. We have television here too, by the way, and Rabbit was watching it live from not long after the first plane. Anyway since you are failing to comprehend the simple point about Bush having made a claim which was consistent with foreknowledge, why are you still trying to make a point about seeing a hole in WTC 1 before no 2 was hit? It isn’t the point, go back and read it. Meanwhile Rabbit will chase down some references in case you are trying to claim that the first plane strike was shown on TV before the second.
Understand that we are not talking about just the hole, but the plane actually hitting the building.
If you do get that much at least, how about we move onto some more things which also help in the theory of foreknowledge? Remembering that these are just three facts, and circumstantial at that. We have much more WTH but maybe you’d rather not go beyond this. It is a mystery really why you are still going on about this issue. What don’t you get about it?
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 1, 2005 at 11:00 PM
Hey, Rabbit, read it again a bit slower.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 2, 2005 at 7:08 AM
Wrong WTH.
You have systematically failed at every turn to understand.
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you’ve done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well… (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you’re not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card—actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower—the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.”
But I was whisked off there—I didn’t have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, “A second plane has hit the tower. America’s under attack.”
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn’t be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
Bush is lying through his teeth here.
The link for this one, it sources back to originals
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 8:27 PM
It is one of a number of facts which point to foreknowledge and in chorus especially, it is significant, stubborn fool.
The proof is here that I was right, and he said he saw something he could not have.
MY fact being correct allows me to use it towards an opinion which might stand up under scrutiny. Instead of half imagined ideas and crazy theories such as you and others like you seem prepared to believe in Despite evidence. you say you know what happened when you don’t, you only think you know. If you knew enough to know what you didn’t know it would be a start.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 2, 2005 at 8:31 PM
Rabbit droppings…
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 3, 2005 at 8:33 AM
The deal which you are still ignoring is that it is consistent with Lies and with foreknowledge.
More important is the following
<blockquote>my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said,
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:01 PM
Does WTH know anything about “The Project for a New American Century”? PNAC?
Does WTH know about the NORAD and CIA training exercises which contributed enormously to the success of 911 for the “Terrorists”?
These are two more things which make a very compelling case for administration officials involvement, they are far more substantial that the Bush words and reactions mentioned above.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 3, 2005 at 9:06 PM
Rabbit,
You are hopeless.
Posted by whattheheck on Nov 4, 2005 at 12:09 PM
WTH Rabbit is actually full of hope. Someone who says he will not change his mind about anything, is telling an open minded and rational Rabbit, HE is hopeless?
Why couldn’t you answer the two simple questions? If you are not on this site to dicuss things logically and with the desire to learn if anything should come up, then why are you on this site at all?
Do you seriously think that anyone on this site, stands to gain from your opinions when you have largely rendered them useless with a stubborn refusal to allow them to be challenged or to defend them in a rational manner?
WTH, you need to do some serious self examination.
Are people like Scorp, Jay and Natalie, the sort of people you feel good being allied with? They are saying exactly the same things as you about most issues, because like you, they have been fed the official set of opinions. You don’t even realise the significance of this fact do you?
You had a great chance with the political spectrum graph, to see exactly what is going on here and yet you failed to see the pattern there too. I guess maybe I’ve been giving you too much credit. Too bad, with so many good attitudes, the truth about certain things would have made you an awesome advocate for the truth. You are still waddling around in the primeval sludge of Mass Opinion.
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 4, 2005 at 5:49 PM
So unstaisfying trying to communicate with morons. Every time you think you have them on reasonable ground they balk at having to admit mistakes. Why is it hardest for people who make the most mistakes to admit even one? Or is the rationale the reverse? Those who find mistakes hardest to admit are the ones most likely to keep making them. That makes sense I guess.
........................................^^..................................................
Posted by Rabbit on Nov 7, 2005 at 3:06 AM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Not having a statistician son doesn’t give your opinion much scientific standing, does it? Maybe it was WTH.
Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment.
and
<i>Not having a statistician son doesn
lb, I think your laziness is endemic to your entire line of thinking…
Your sarcasm is a bit thick and witless, as usual.
Apologies. By deliberately falsely calling those exams populist, I am actually calling (smearing, actually) the compass as populist and indicative of everything pop culturalist.
In other words, its only claim to credibility is as a pseudointellectual parlor game. Fun, to be sure.
Sorry for having to dumb that up, but you didn’t seem to be getting the point.
1)The statements are fuzzy (evidence for that is in the comments being made by many people who took the test)
This is evidence that people are fuzzy on the concept. Could you be more obtuse?
2) What value is the test as a true multidimensionality when the old LEFT RIGHT poles are left intact?
Are you saying there is no difference between collectivism and individual competition, anymore? What are you saying? Do you know? I don’t. Multidimensionality requires at least two axes in a Cartesian system. Perhaps you could redesign it using polar co-ordinates or vectors. that would be interesting.
<i>3) How can a Libertarian be pinned to two separate poles? The RIGHT pole to the
Yeah, <b>I’m<> lazy.
And careless, obviously.
Luminous Beauty,
Good to see you here on this thread.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
Do you think the difference between “strongly agree” and “agree” is the degree of conviction. Niggling and wriggling room. And that a change in degree of conviction is not dishonest?
Do you think that a simpler, cruder test with only “agree” or “disagree” is a valid option and worthy of consideration?
Do people change?
I think they can and do. Some for the better and some not.
From wikepedia:
The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one’s opponents actually offer. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
Present the opponent’s argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person’s arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent’s argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent’s argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion
It seems to me that merely asserting that something is ‘unscientific’ is about as weak an argument as one can make. Hard to make a straw man argument if that is the case. Prove me wrong if you can, or you aren’t too lazy.
No, I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass, but completely destroys the whole point of pulling the LEFT/RIGHT divide on a thusly irrelevant axis.
The creator eliminates the whole point of the multidimensional spectrum.
Additional, and besides the point, that is yet another clear example of the failure of this questionnaire. What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
The compass fails to differentiate between charity and government. And anyone listening to the LEFT on that issue knows there is a vast difference.
My finding of unscientific rests on the blatant failures of this system. Had there been real science behind it (or even a modicum of common sense), such obvious failings would have been avoided.
The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?
<blockquote>You don
Hi, David. Happy to be here.
Do you think that your recent results invalidate your previous results? Or are both possibly valid and worthy of consideration?
I think the results are different snapshots in time. As the variation is <1 the differences are probably insignificant.
<i>Do you think the difference between
I am saying that to label the defining difference between LEFT and RIGHT as collectivism vs individual rights is not only presumptive on the part of the creator of the compass…
It’s presumptive and dishonest to change the definition of the right pole to individual rights rather than individual competition, which is how they define it if you could read.
What is collectivism? Is it a group of people who come together for a common purpose? or is it strictly governmental imposition of collectivism?
According to the site, it can be either. Again with the reading comprehension.
The Red Cross and the churches of America were the first to come to the aid of Katrina victims. Was that collectivism? Does supporting either of those two efforts mean one is necessarily on the LEFT?
No. It does mean that someone on the right may under certain conditions agree with what are arguably leftist views. Does the prospect scare you?
The extreme RIGHT axis is also labeled libertarianism. How can you have a left libertarian if the RIGHT is, by definition, libertarian?
Libertarianism is obviously referring to the Libertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. I’m a left libertarian. Do you think you can call me on it? Why don’t you study the whole site instead of making foolish assumptions from such a casual reading?
(straw man) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.
Exactly.
Exactly how did I criticize the actions or beliefs of your fictitious son? Where am I critical of statisticians?
Hi Luminous Beauty
I don’t like the simpler cruder test you linked either. They call the test ” The World’s Smallest Political Quiz ” and they are not exaggerating. Too simple and crude.
Thanks for your answers, as always, they were illuminating.
One of your answers had a thought that started me thinking on another tangent. I will think about it today and post my thoughts later. Thank you again.
Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 9:23 AM
Thus my objection to the questions and the map onto which the answers are plotted.
Why is voluntary collectivism a LEFT view co-opted by the RIGHT? To assume otherwise is to ascribe a libertarian view strictly to the RIGHT.
But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.
Further,
Through his alleged incompetence, which you presumed to be the only one with special knowledge of.
<blockquote>Because your son is a statistician hardly gives you much standing to make such a judgment. Did you have him make a thorough analysis of the methodologies and metrics? I didn
Where your argument breaks down, WTH, is that these aren’t questions with a limited range of answers of which one may choose, they are statements to which one can agree or disagree. This removes the subjective bias for which the ordinary run of surveys, particularly the kind of push polls used in advertising and political campaigns, are so famously and justly susceptible. You might like to consult your son. Or a psychologist. Not because I think you’re crazy, you understand. To get a perspective on subjective bias that an advertising person, whose job as I understand it is to create subjective bias, might not have.
It’s a shame advertisers in Britain can’t use sex to get women drunk. I’m appalled. On the bright side, maybe old and bald will become the new ‘sexy’.
<i>But (ad nauseum), the compass paints libertarians in contradictory colors, first as strictly on the RIGHT and then as a spectrum that encompasses both the LEFT and the RIGHT.<>
To repeat myself, Libertarianism is obviously referring to the CapitalistLibertarian movement. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et. al. Do you not believe there are left libertarians, or what?
Libertarian is one pole of a spectrum whose other end is Authoritarian. It’s the up/down spectrum, not the left/right spectrum. I can keep this up all day. We can see who throws up first.
<i> You don
Absolutely. But this isn’t about my personal beliefs, but the legitimacy of the compass. If there are left libertarians, I ask again, how can the extreme RIGHT axis, the horizontal one, be labeled libertarian?
The chart, and subsequent analysis, suffers from that ambiguity.
Jay:
Perhaps you could send an email to the PC folks, and tell them you find the libertarian/libertarianism thing confusing. they just might change it to Randian Objectivism or some such. Or they might just laugh their asses off.
Facetious sarcasm, again. I know.
<blockquote> It doesn
:)
I think it might help if you understood the shaded italicized words Neo-Liberalism (libertarianism) are examples meant to clarify what is the actual label, i.e. ‘Right’. Right? Right.
” Or a psychologist ”
Maybe we all need to take some ink blot tests too !?
Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass…..If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn’t clarity in my book…
Regardless of the facetious intent (which I do appreciate), it does in fact call into question the competences when you ascribe an answer and conclusion to your own questions without knowing if the son or statistician actually did the research.
You blatantly assumed that because the conclusion was one you disagreed with, that the research could not have been done.
Not really. More of a challenge to put up or shut up. I took the chance of being wrong, but I really liked the odds. Still do.
My error was in thinking you were the one with the statistician son. That you made the assertion of it being unscientific with zero, zip, zilch, nada argumentation for that assertion is well documented. Have you done the research and analysis? In this I believe have a more than high likelihood of being correct when I say, I didn’t think so.
Putting theory ahead of facts.</i>
Better than putting my head so far up my ass I see daylight.
<i>Clarity is not a word I would use about the compass…..If one uses multiple meanings for the same word, then that isn
No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
What’s your point?
(no facetious intent here, just an honest question).
Posted by luminous beauty on October 24, 2005 at 2:44 PM
This will be a three part post for clarity ....
Part One .... People do change. We do have free will.
Rabbit, I know you were mainly directing your words “towards the reluctant brides” .
And I am thankful for the opportunity to defend my position .... and their’s too, if it happens to be mine. Uppity and Irritated. All is always forgiven. Please forgive me.
But your words, some of them, were for me too. Here is an example that struck me :
Rabbit says: “He still cannot accept the implication that dishonesty is necessarily only changing from yes to no.”
Rabbit, that is not only my implication . It is my assertion on both counts.
Strong to mild and yes to no. BOTH.
People do change. We do have free will.
Maybe they don’t even know they were dishonest? Maybe they are being honest now? You insinuate that they are trying to alter the results to fit their personal fantasies. Should we be hooking people up to lie detector test when they answer? Or sending them to a psychologist for ink blot tests? How do you measure strong or mild? These are personal questions and the definitions applied are personal as well. My strong may be your mild. It is all subjective if you like.
People do have free will. The test did not make them what they are. They do.
In the final analysis : This is a self examination. Honesty and reasonableness is a given if we want to relate our results to one another. I am honest and trust that others are as well. If they are not ... what can I do except be, hopefully, a good example. Hope for the best and believe who you will, subjectively of course.
People do change. We do have free will.
Part Two ..... People do change. We do have free will.
More on the matter :
I ask Luminous Beauty : Do you think the difference between
Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.
People do change. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.
Defending people who seek better change for themselves.
Defending people who seek better change for others.
I would hope that if someone was wrong about something that those who are right about that something would be gracious enough to allow those who were wrong to join the right position.
Would those that are right tell those who were wrong they must remain wrong.?
Sorry, change is not allowed?
Sorry, carry on being ignorant and/or deluded?
Where is the free will?
Free will exists.
Live as if we do have free will (even if it is an illusion as some may suggest)
If not, we are sock puppets and not responsible for what we do.
We must treat each other as if we do have free will.
If everyone is a No Free Will Sock Puppet why bother talking?
It leads to despair and dissillusionment.
I think that we are free, and I don’t think it is an illusion.
Whew, that is a lot of comment for me… and only one HTML mistake. I am learning.
Sorry if it went off onto a free will tangent but ..
I see people afraid to change. Afraid of the possibilty.
I see people who don’t think it is possible for others to change.
So I went on a bit of a rant.
And hopefully everyone changes for the better.
I Will Be Who I Will To Be.
WTH:
<i>I don
Jay
Define real science.
To Rabbit who is a real scientist, or at least was, real science is open minded and tackles experimentation with a scientific attitude.
So far Rabbit analysis of the results has been real science by the definition which has served real scientists for some time now.
You are a pseudo-intellectual, and not a scientists anus. You are being patently subjective in all your criticisms and yet have failed to apply any of your criticisms to the actual question and how it relates to giving an invalid result. Has Jay read the FAQs? Would it help him? Probably not because they would require an objective analysis and Jay has an illness in this regard.
You really should stop insulting luminous Beauty who so very obviously possesses a mind which outshines your dim glow by many orders of magnitude. You do not look smarter being rude to superior people, you look even dumber, if that is possible.
You have as has been pointed out before refused to ever consider actual facts which relate to any of your opinions. If it is challenged you ignore the challenge. A good piece has been written which describes your type perfectly, Jay and it shall be re-posted after Rabbit has read the rest of the thread. This is coming from page 4, and Rabbit is about to flip the page. First he must just check something.
Showing off after Rabbit shows you had nothing which was more than ten minutes away on the net….....................sigh…....
<frameset>WTH</frameset>
Rabbit agreed with your view about a different scale and still would rather see a finer scale than a cruder one.
Nonetheless I feel the questions are well selected and actually many are cleverly crafted to achieve the subtle separation between the various poles even including such apparently opposed opposing views which can and often are held by Leftists despite being generally viewed as right wing. Obviously the reverse and the other variations which could make every such reference to this format complex.
There are two main reasons I feel confidant saying this.
Firstly and this is personal you can take it or leave it. Rabbit is an unusually perceptive creature about others. He is quite used to being way ahead of everybody in one area, perception of “People”. this has been shown both on the internet where it is apparently only based on words, but lies or otherwise, all words carry there own meaning and so much about language is far far more than mere words. The order and choice of the words and so many other things can convey as much as the actual content of what the words were meant to convey. Not so much at a first meeting, but over time in a dialogue situation, even if that is an argument, often they are best.
So with this in mind Rabbit can say that the results appear consistent with reality as Rabbit percieves it. The evidence stands with Rabbit’s prediction of yourself and he as having very similar attitudes. It is only the perception of certain facts whgich separates you and I as people, broadly speaking. Rabbit would have initially expected to be more to the left and down, much more like Luminous Beauty, but was forced to accept something he already knew and that is Rabbit yet comes from a fairly conservative background and has never quite succeeded in jumping that last cliff into the abyss of Liberal and Anarchistic abandonment. Something he has watched a few of his friends achieve over the years, and somewhat wistfully. Instead after a brief sojourn on the road, rabbit settled down and had wife and kids..................................The point is Rabbit recognised the essential truth about his deepset attitudes which were reflected in the graph results….............................It becomes clearer and clearer the more results Rabbit has seen. Not the follow up testing people are doing, though that is only proving the thing more to Rabbit. It is impossible not to notice the varied reactions without excitement as a scientific mind. Provided of course one can examine the thing objectively, which is exactly what the problem is for Jay. he has already shown he has NO objectivity to speak of. It placed him exactly where he would be by Rabbit’s estimation too. Rabbit has always known he was following a fantasy version of Bush. He imagines Bush is a bit right of centre, as I said before, amd he also imagines that is where he should be. He is incapable at this point of approaching the thing rationally, or anything which clashes with his pre-conceptions.
Of course it must be remembered that WTH is also quite capable of doing this, but Rabbit feels that you may actually be fairly aware of the reasonable accuracy, or at least coming to realise it. The most telling thing which must speak in my favour for you to take me seriously has got to be my recent claims of our similarity, no?
The questions WTH has identified bear discussing in light of our differing views thinks Rabbit. This is exactly what must be done if there is any doubt about the validity. Methinks it is possible to clarify much beeter and if it is as good as rabbit thinks it is worth it. It is just one experiment. It produces an impartial set of results, the results say a lot if they are accurate, so the question is how accurate.
We have had all the generic criticisms of sampling and statistics so far but not enough actual analysis of the things to justify any of those criticisms.
First though Rabbit must clarify something with the David.
Rabbit has said from the start and it is good to clarify that we agree on this, that the test gives an accurate and valid set of data, for comparison.
When some, who obviously were perturbed by their results began to re-peat the test by deliberately changing the emphasis of their answers, and being so foolish as to claim they were now “happier” with their results, Rabbit pointed out that these results were worthless. For all the reasons he has since detailed. The point about dishonesty, which may or may not actually have been Rabbit’s actual word from the start, was clarified better by pointing out the subjects Tainted state as a test subject, the loss of objectivity in the experiment, the subject knows how to manipulate the result and whether or not he desires to, the result is scientifically invalidated for the purposes of the experiment. Set up a new experiment by all means, and then you will get a range of results which are specific to that individual, they will if repeated even show that person’s growth and development or Change over time.
Rabbit has not really been trying to say that people never change, and even when Rabbit used those exact words he included a caveat.
It all comes down to context. In the context of this experiment and it’s discussion, People do not Change. Sure their attitudes may have some re-adjustment, even in a short term, but in the context of this experiment, people are going to give a true and valid response, the first time at least.
End of specific Monk message.
The arguments about the actual questions and how some were hard to answer and soem would have liked more or less choice. Some had no responses to certain questions at all. The answer is staring you in the face without even reading the FAQs, people are all different and merely trying to place them on a linear scale has not been giving an accurate picture.
This is a three dimesionsional view, in a sense, and many of you are applying two dimensional thinking to it. Your critique of the questions balance is being given even without you have seen exactly how the questions are weighted. The fact that you had no answer to some questions, and were forced to make a best choice has been allowed for, it is still a valid result. You will have put the answer you were most comfortable with.
WTH you are right, it is possible to refine the test more. But what about it as it stands, have a look at the FAQs, have you? Rabbit has only had a glance, but he only saw confirmation of what he had figured. By all means show the thing to your son, but you sound quite capable of picking up what Rabbit is saying and seeing it in a clearer light.
It is not that one cannot criticise it and we should do so, properly, but rabbit wants to be sure you at least recognise the essential validity of the things before we look at the details because it is pointless to just have one trying to prove th test is valid and the other trying to prove it is not.
Rabbit proposes it is valid to a fair degree, it gives explainable results and consistent. If we can begin from here then try and quantify it’s accuracy, or otherwise.
Rabbit’s turn to be facetious.
WTH
<i>almost exclusively industrial accounts
David
Rabbit has just finished reading your posts. It occurs to rabbit that you are talking about life and people in general and this is not nor ever was Rabbit’s point. It was always the experiment, and it’s application which Rabbit is trying to establish. YOU KNOW RABBIT DOES NOT believe people cannot change, why the hell else would Rabbit do what he does? You know he seeks CHANGE, but thgat is not what we were talking about. Rabbit is trying to discuss the validity of the experiment and you are trying to dicuss the eternal path of enlightenment. Nothing you are otherwise saying is Rabbit in disagreement with. He agrees with all you say about free will, and about choices and growth and actually Rabbit would disgree only to say that for the most part change is one way, very few souls actually change for the worse over a life time, most go forward in the long run.
But these things are out of context when discussing the results which people here now have gotten..
By the way rabbit has had Mrs Rabbit do hers and he is about to see her e-mail from this morning. Rabbit would think she is closer to Nelson Mandela than Ghandi. Probably Nortjh of Rabbit. She comes from the Northern Hemisphere and Rabbit from the South, so it would be appropriate.
David this final one is a rebuke.
Now Rabbit reads how you use Luminous Beauty’s words. You did not ask those things of Luminous Beauty in context and you are not quoting them in context.
within the very quote you used are the following which can be used in this context
<b>change of conviction is honest and not just an attempt to rig the results.<b>
Which was what was Rabbit’s point from the start.
Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.
If a person is incapable of answering most of those questions within a fair degree of accuracy of their own positions, the first time, how can knowing how the test results looked and thus being able to alter the results going to make a more useful answer?
tch tch tch….............^^..............
David the test was as you have repeatedly, said most accurate the first time, why do you still want to say that if Jay wants to change his result that that is OK too? Dude, Rabbit agrees Jay is free to do whatever he wants with his result…....................... but as far as Rabbit, ........and anybody, including you, by your own stated beliefs…......will consider his first result to be the best picture of him as a person, here and now.
Rabbit has ben calling them questions out of habit but now wishes to correct, Statements with which we agree, or disagree, not questions.
This is a critical thing about it which impressed rabbit and he forget even to mention it and fell into the silly trap of calling them questions too.
The definition is important.
To quote Luminous Beauty, who has said this more clearly than Rabbit, .........If there is any inherent imbalance in those results you would have to look at the weighting of the results for each response and at the calculating algorithm
That is where any criticism must begin, not poking about with generalities about testing methods most of which are taken care of by the scientific process by which the test is constructed. Most if not all of the criticisms people have raised are adequately answered in the FAQs. Maybe not adequate for some people, but is anything enough to convince some?
If only these people were capable of reading a paragraph and picking out the main ideas, and challenging them, instead of the format used, or semantics or some general trick of avoidance of the real issues.
You can start by saying that the US presence in Iraq is making things worse than they ever were, and instead of looking at how things were, in detail and comparing to now, in detail, they end up using WWII or the French Revolution to illustrate their contention that Iraq has never been so well off.
Obviously this is an example and not intended to chjange the subject, which is what it all boils down to. People would too often rather change the subject than admit error.
Yes Rabbit,
Life in general.
That is why the Trilogy on Four Parts. 2 parts this, 1 part that, and 1 part ??
I acknowledged the tangent of the rant.
I am not sure if it was out of context? If it was for you I apologize again. My words were mostly facetious but serious as well. As much to you as to others. Your words provided the opportunity for it. I am glad that you and I know people can change. We have illustrated it for them.
Luminous Beauty,
I read your subsequent posts and hope you read my previous posts on the thread for the context. My questions had a simple context of their own though. So did LB’s answers.
I shamelessly asked Luminous Beauty ,specifically, the same questions I was asking every one rhetorically. I ask, get answer, in context or not. Rabbit said he hoped others would weigh in on the discussion. My questions stand.
I trust that Luminous Beauty would not let my impertinence stand if it was perceived. LB : Your thoughts please?
Yes Rabbit. Let them do what they will. I do stand byt the original results as the best result now. But with a little wriggle room. It was a good test for the reasons you and I and Luminous Beauty have all stated.
Jiggling the watch to see how it works is all I am doing
Curious Dave
PS The experiment is us…and I too think the flow of enlightenment is mostly one way ... for the better.
“Luminous Beauty also specifically stated that any changes on a second go are for him (OK the bald, old guy got me..), were very small and the implication at least is that there should be no appreciable difference from one go to the next.”
Yes Rabbit, The second go at HONEST results . Please do not forget that as I have said my second resluts were an experimant. The experiment being answering “Strongly Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.
I hope that if anyone is changing their HONEST RESULTS that it is that ... HONEST.
Mrs Rabbit
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00
A little North, yes, Mandela. Good guess.
She is a clever economic numbery girl by the way.
<blockquote>libertarian and libertarianism are not the same word.
No arguement here.
One is a political philosophy, the other is someone who advocates or believes in that philosophy.
What
David,
“Part Three ..... People do change. We do have free will.”
This reminds me of the only agrument with my wife that I can remember winning.
She said, “People do not change.”
Then I reminded her, “I used to be much nicer.” and she agreed.
I guess I showed her!
luminous beauty,
Yes, STATEMENTS
Rabbit,
My comment:
WTH:
Question with inherent bias: Did you know WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast?
Statement without implicit bias: WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.
For the record I disagree, but only because I have no evidence to indicate otherwise.
Posted by luminous beauty on October 25, 2005 at 11:39 AM
luminous beauty,
“WTH is a fascist homosexual pederast; Agree/disagree.”
———————-
If this survey were better written you could at least be sure that with my numbers in the lower left quad, I would not be a fascist. The rest would till be an open question.
luminous beauty,
Unless, of course, I lied to the survey, to myself and to you.
(Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any “FACTS” coming from the internet.)
Just to clarify
I think lb just proved I am indeed a troll.
I still don’t get it.
A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit, except when it is a hareball for Fluffy.
Jay:
A rabbit may be rabbit-like, but rabbit-like is not a rabbit.
Get it?
Explicitly:
Adherents of Libertarianism (a rightist political movement) may all be libertarians, but not all libertarians are adherents of Libertarianism.
So, the website is dealing with fuzzy definitions, then.
Funny, I thought I already made that point in my original critique.
Q: When is a libertarian not a Libertarian?
A: Exactly!
Nothing fuzzy about it, Jay, except the surface of your cerebral cortex. Your mind is on vacation, but your mouth is working overtime. Give it up, already. If you do have anything closely resembling an even tangential valid point it is pathetically trivial, to be generous. There is nothing more obvious than that we both could be doing better things with our time.
Apology accepted.
Luminous Beauty, Do I owe you an aplogy for my possible impertinence when I dragged you into the discussion Rabbit and I were having?
Jay, you’re welcome.
David, not at all. I didn’t have to jump in. I did try to toe a line between you guys. I’m happy you two have repaired your little contretemps. Hopefully it will serve as model for some of the folks here, on how rational beings resolve their differences.
Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77
That’s about where I would have guessed. Not a flame-on capitalist but distrustful of many collectivist forms, wanting many areas of life to be beyond authority or others’ votes. Not a bad estimate.
Some of the questions were loaded as hell… so many assumed correlations of meaning and values. Several were quite irritating.
For what it’s worth…
WTH
IMO they will get a subjective reponse.
Of course they will, we want a subjective response from the sunject, WTH.
We must not have the subjects awareness of the outcomes affecting their response precisely because their respknse is unavoidably subjective.
Once we have completed the test, we can stand outside and make an objective analysis, if we are able. The alternative is to remain locked within a subjective outlook, failing to recognise the significance of the overall results, for want of comprehension. As such one is merely unable to remove onseself to an objective viewpoint, it doesn’t alter the test results or its validity, only the subjects outlook can change, from subjective reaction, to an objective viewpoint, which is always a challenge mentally, only humans can normally do it. .............I am a magic Rabbit…........look back at my results, I was at first a bit dismayed, but consideration of the broader picture, (others can read the FAQs for the same effect), made it much clearer.
WTH ............Rabbit was not being mean to WTH, as one who has seen more than enough of businessmen, entrepreneurs, and bordrooms, my comment is about the people who usually inhabit them, it was facetious but not intended to be malicious.
<i>Which, as I keep trying to point out to Rabbit, is a possibility with any
Rabbit is not too sure what this word was meant to be either>
antrths
We shall call it lies…....... Maybe it was untruths….......yes.
Jay,
That’s so
sweet.
lb,
sorry. I meant that to be in response to Rabbit’s admonishment on blockquoting.
sorry for the confusion.
Jay, think nothing of it. It’s your confusion, not mine, anyway.
Just to be clear, this is a response to your response to my response to your response to Rabbit’s admonishment on block quoting.
I have to admit I find you fascinating, Jay. At least in an anthropological way. You are not an unintelligent or completely witless person, yet in intellectual debate you display less a fundamental grasp of reason and logic than the average Borneo tribesman. If you were to show the same level of cognition in your ordinary life you undoubtedly would represent a grave risk to yourself and others.
It does seem a be a recurrent characteristic in many of those who identify themselves with the conservative movement. Particularly those who like to make themselves obnoxious on left-wing websites. I can’t decide whether it is a conscious absurdist strategy intended to inflict confusion and disarray in the ranks of what you see as the enemy (troll), or whether you actually are attempting to engage in honest and genuine debate to the best of your abilities (truth-seeker). Maybe a mixture of the two?
It does not make much difference to me. You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills and to focus my life’s experience of thinking and laboring in the field of life’s trenchant problems. For that, I wish to extend my most sincere and genuine thanks and gratitude. No irony intended, honest.
In any case, I sincerely believe you should take a ‘fresher course in Logic and Rhetoric. It would make you a better foil, anyway (This time don’t sit in the back of the class and trade snarky notes with your geeky friends, OK).
“You are a useful foil to hone my infant writing skills..”
... and sharpen your wit too. Both of you.
Anyone who can make me laugh scores points with me.
Thank you all.
To Jay
Your acknowledgement, of Rabbit’s request, is very much appreciated. In fact by so doing, you have put Rabbit in the invidious position of having to apologise to you…... again…........eew…..................^>..................
Rabbit was not very polite, and this was partly a consequence of carry over distaste from previous times, and partly due to Rabbits assumption that you would ignore the request. Thank you, and Rabbit would like to announce that Jay Cline is the inspiration which brought all of us, finally crawling up from the mud of HTML ignorance. ........Hooray for Jay.
Rabbit still votes decidedly against smilies and anything really which detracts from simple straighforward discussion.
Every step forward should be reviewed if it despoils the environment.
Rabbit stands self rebuked but happy…...................^^.................
I absolutely agree with this article. Republicans can easily paint Democrats as “pure politicians”, trying to cater to whatever the public wants, because of their inability to take firm stands on issues. Then the GOP can look like the party of principle. HA.
What I don’t understand, is the comments here referring to the 1960s Civil Rights legislation almost as if it were too liberal because it lost the South.
This is extremely frightening. If Democrats shy away from such legislation because of political fears, the country is in trouble: how are we supposed to move forward?
What is needed is an “information source” that can spread the Liberal message and combat the poison that is constantly being planted by Rove & Co.
Well what do you know, Government Accounting Office confirms key key 2004 stolen election findings.
Is this the way the way Democracy works is it?
Just as well as it wasn’t a democrat who stole the election by fraud, now that would be a crime.
kmg36
These sites and the internet in generall is all there is, use it well and pass the news on.
Here’s your big example to the world Scorpy and Jay and WTH.
According to CNN, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee received “more than 57,000 complaints” following Bush’s alleged re-election. Many such concerns were memorialized under oath in a series of sworn statements and affidavits in public hearings and investigations conducted in Ohio by the Free Press and other election protection organizations.
The non-partisan GAO report has now found that, “some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes.”
The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that “public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines.” The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O’Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.
————-From above link
Rabbit,
I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet is true.” I have NEVER said, “Nothing on the internet can be proven.”
As a matter of practice I seldom say “never”
It is not the beliefs which need to be the same, Rabbit of all people is most open to new ideas. If your ideas are different to mine about the same thing then the dicussion is worthwhile and mutually beneficial.
If however we have different ideas because we have different facts upon which to base those ideas, then the FACTS are the thing which can and must be agreed upon. If those facts can be established, then to not do so where there is disagreement is avoidance, and it is recognisably the only way in which people with your views can indulge in dicussion with people who challenge your world view.
You are sadly blind to your own blinkered condition, and it is incredibly weird to see otherwise rational people behaving like it. It is recognisable more and more as a condition, common to an increasingly isolated group of people who denying the entire world beyond their program.
If misquotes or mis-information is included in a source somebody gives, then the rational thing to do, is to show this is so, with better information. It is irrrational to refuse to consider anything within a source as unreliable merely on the strength of your argument. You are being generic when it is spceifics which count. When we make a generic comment you prefer then to find specifics which are exceptions, which is not the point either. Generalities are fine, in their place.
If you say you support the WAR in Iraq, because it is reducing terrorism, you have given your opinion, and a supposed fact upon which you base your thinking.
If Rabbit then says he does not support the war, that is Rabbit’s opinion, and is not a refutation of itself. If however Rabbit challenges the fact upon which your opinion is based; <i>ie The War in Iraq is increasing the number of Terrorists and world Terror acts., then this becomes a refutation of your fact, and IT DOES MATTER. If it does not matter to you that your facts are wrong, then even reasonable people like Rabbit and others here, will simply call you names, because anybody who does not care about accuracy and yet who would waste others’ time with nothing but biased opinions, is only worth calling names.
Now to simply say either of the above claims, is in itself only a statement, and as you say of no value in proving anything.
So Rabbit then says the war is increasing the number of terrorists and terror and he provides a number of newspaper articles which refer to documents or speaches by notables which refer to the fact that terrorism is increasing. Rabbit then posts links to reports from various organisations, who have verifiable lists of the terrorist actions and relative numbers. Rabbit maybe also posts links to reports about CIA and other intelligence organisations making similar claims. These things are what would typically be considered sources for such a claim and upon reading them, WTH would have a choice to believe or not to believ what he is reading. If he reads something he does not believe, and gives a reason why not, then it should not be too hard for Rabbit to better verify the fact or even agree with WTH as it may happen that the particular fact is unverifiable or even questionable.
It could be that WTH could find something which says there are lots less terrorists and terror attacks today thjan ever before and we would look at that.
If however it became apparent that Rabbit has a case for there being more terrorism now, then WTH would in all fairness, then be expected to re-visit his opinions, based upon this fact. You may yet have other reasons which buttress your support for the war, but you would at least no longer be able to claim that the war in Iarq reduces terrorism. You may still have the opinion for other reasons, which hopefully you will also put on the table, but if facts begin to accumalate which collectively abolish your reasons for believing the war is righteous, the a rational being would re-evaluate those beliefs in as open minded way as possible.
The regular claims by you and others that Rabbit loves Muslims or that Rabbit hates America, are nothing but emotional accusations and they have no basis in anything Rabbit has ever said. Just because Rabbit has as a referee to say that America is at fault, does not mean he is bised towards America. Just because he says Muslims don’t deserve to be demonised because of a minority of extremists doesn’t make Rabbit biased. Just because Rabbit says that a minority of xetremists have taken over America, does not mean he considers all Americans to be reflected by those extremists. The sheer ignorance and hypocrisy of that crowd is represented magnificantly by George W Bush, and it is regrettable to find so many peope who are just like him and just as bad as all the caricatures of Americans. You WTH are borderline, only marginally free of being so deluded.. Do you think it is easy to speak thus to someone? It is not. At this stage you have earned Rabbit’s respect, because you have shown the courage to come this far, but there is no easy way to tell someone they are so wrong about some things that they are actually supportinmg something which inm reality is the antithesis of everything they believe.
An important clue which has been offerred before is this.
Your position is supported by a fast shrinking margin, it is gaining no new supporters and has not since it’s inception. Rabbit by this means polls in USA. Those who believe as we others do, we so-called lefties, which is not so simple now as we know., our numbers are swelling fast. Every day now we are seeing people who have finally opened their eyes and that is how they see it themselves. The most common comments from them are, “all this time I thought I knew what was going on, now I realise the truth. everything has changed for me” Now that might sound scary and it probably is. Rabbit has had thirty years to get used to the ideas which are now occurring to many more people, and so hasn’t felt, “safe” for a long time.. Used to living in an uncertain world means maybe Rabbit is a bit immune to the beastliness.
Rabbit does not want to prove his beliefs.
WTH Rabbit only wants to prove certain facts upon which those beliefs are based, where it seems we have differing views of the facts as outlined above. If we can agree on facts and yet have different ideas, that is fine and it is a lot more common among open minded people than you may imagine. Curious Dave and I have very different attitudes in some ways and we don’t agree on several things. If you pay attention though, we do agree on facts, or when we don’t we will establish them and then decide. The same can be said of most of us. Rabbit has disagreed about some things with others and they with Rabbit, but the sort of facts we base our “different” opinions on, are generally agreed upon, or we set out to achieve that.
Again the comparison is that we already know what you know about things, but you don’t know what we know in addition. everytime one of us tells you that there is more to a particluar story or history you get your back up. Do you sriously think you know everything there is to know about each subject? Then why do you refuse to look at any new information?
The new info might not turn out to be solid, it may not check out, and if you can show this, we would all be gratefull. The information which we choose to impart, and defend, however is things we will ourselves already have questioned and researched so don’t be surprised if most of it checks out. ignore the cries of Shills and Trolls who are always attacking sources and never the content, that is their bread and butter. Many of the Shills cannot even access many of the sites we give as references because they are kept shielded from certain truth by their servers. They never admit this, anm so have a blanket rule of ignoring things and of generic attacks on sources. This is precisely what the programmed sheeple do so they can easily hide their dishonesty among all the confusion.
It is inevitable that new information will lead to your opinions changing, but that is not my goal I swear. I want only for the truth to be accepted and then for all to make up their own minds. That is in contrast to having their minds made up for them by selective propaganda.
Don’t throw that back at Rabbit either he is not being selective, he is advising you to look at as much info as possible, not just selected sources. Rabbit is prepared to look at anything you have and defend anything satisfactorily or give it up. How open and rational is that?
Lastly WTH when you are ready to get into the damned car, and buckle up, we have a short but awesome trip into the unknown to undertake.. List your objections to Rabbit’s outlook, if you feel you have devined it and allow him to defend his position based on facts, which will be established or abandoned as the case may be. You have only to challenge Rabbit on the facts, and if he cannot give a GOOD reason for adhering to them you will recieve an acknowledgement of this if not a complete reversal of opinion. Rabbit has no fear of any test of his opinions, and he knows that WTH has soon no choice but to put his own to the test too. Rabbit has no choice but to admit the whole thing is for him a forgone conclusion. Rabbit knows WTH belongs to us. None would believe it but Rabbit knows that WTH is on the brink of realisation, and when the penny drops it is going to sound like distant thunder, to the alert.
WTH is more than he seems, a whole generation or at least a portion of them are connected to WTH by their very essence. He is one of those kids who picked on the Rabbit as a strange youngling, but only in a peripheral sense. He is not one who led, but rather who joined in, but never quite knew why. Today WTH is OLDER, like rabbit he has many summers and many battles under his belt. But in some ways, we are not so far removed from that playground when we found ourselves separated by the crowd who knew not what they were doing or saying.
Are they really any more clued in today, now that they have grown up?
Rabbit said,
And here you are back to safe and quite useless generalisations.
All of your generalisations are of no use if you can’t put them to any use to help you understand anything. There is so much information that is lost to you, and you are wasting your time around here with that attitude. You will constantly face being called ignorant, your opinions will face ridicule because they are often based on patent falsehoods, and your only answer to being proven wrong, and you have been on numerous issues, is to say nothing can be proven. Rabbit cannot hold the branch of peace forever, and a greedy hypocritical nation of warmongers cannot fail to be called one if it cannot mend it’s ways.
if Rabbit was to turn to the sort of un-referenced hyperbole as you, he could speak far more of Extremist elements who decide American Imperial foreign policy, the Fundamentalist Religious Zealots who attack Muslim Nations on the strength of fraud and lies, to steal their OIL. It is also true that the President of the United States is the son of a Pedophile, has WTH heard of the details of that? What are details to WTH so we’ll just let the statement stand. America is the main reason that there is lots of Cheap Heroin back on the streets. Thanks to America reversing the Taliban’s clampdown on Heroin trafficking, thanks to DIRECT US support of the industry it is now flourishing again. Well hell, why not. Heroin is the USA stock in trade when it comes to making lots of fast bucks which need to be kept below the radar. Can anyone say “Golden Triangle”? And George Herbert Bush and CIA all in one sentence? The Rabbit will make a point of spouting lots of unqualified opinions for the benefit of WTH, and making reference to historical events, in as irresponsible a way as WTH thinks right. No arguing with Rabbit now WTH. You have set the standard. You can say anything you want, and Rabbit is n ot going top challenge anything you wish to babble on about. The Rabbit will in return not feel obligated to observe his usual measure approach. You cannot just say Rabbit is wrong of course and ahve it mean anything, for Rabbit is telling the truth as he knows it. Of course, unlike WTH Rabbit will be happy to provide references for anything which he claims as a fact, and unlike WTH Rabbit can defend his ideas.
In the meantime, the USA was behind the Lockerbie Bombing, and the Israeli’s are believed to have carried out the attck on the USS Cole
Europe is not confronting any threats in any backyards, where do you get your rubbish. There is no threat in Europes backyard, no fundy Muslim groups have been causinmg any trouble in Europe. The biggest terrorist threat in Europe is NEO-Nazis.
Of course everyone knows that it was agents of the Spanish police who pulled off the Madrid bombings, and it was the news of this which cost the Spanish Government the election, everyone except most Americans of course.
It is also likely the London bombings were done with BOMBS under the trains, not in backpacks as was claimed. It is certain that at least one of the four alleged “Bombers” is still alive and well and was not in England at the time it happened.
Bush knew the WTC’s were coming down before the first plane hit. He gave away his foreknowledge in an interview later, claiming to have been watching the first plane hit the buildings on TV and then the second one.
It is so easy to just spout off unverified nfacts. The thing is of course there are many on this site who already know much about thses things and know quite well that most of what Rabbit has just been saying is factual and verifiable. So if it ever feels like people are talking over your head WTH, speaking of things of which you know nothing, don’t be too worried, it is nothing except our opinions being different to yours. It has to do with the strange way people like us go about discerning things research, debate and open minds. Nothing to concern yourself with. You really are going to have a very unsatisfactory experience overall though, and this is too bad. You shall reap what you sow.
It would seem that WTH is only willing to listen to rock hard rigorously deductive arguments supported by verifiable reproducible evidence. His only use for inductive reasoning, it would seem, is to show that inferences cannot be absolutely proven in the above fashion. This is a naive and disingenuous view. What he is saying in effect is; since you cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if it has risen every morning since time immemorial, then one is in error for believing it will come up tomorrow. It is not immaterial to point out that the sun doesn’t actually ‘rise’, but that the rising of the sun is the apparent artifact of the earth’s rotation on it’s axis.
It’s also evident that much of WTH’s opinions are based on inferential beliefs that he has never thought deeply about, but is irrationally and stubbornly resistant to bring into question. Opinions that are objective barriers to the potential growth of his understanding and wisdom.
In particular his shallow, simplistic and a-causal belief that there is an existential conflict between ‘radical Islam’ and the ‘rest of the world’. He appears poorly informed about the complex, social, cultural and political history and nature of ‘radical Islam’ and it’s context in the Islamic world. He shouldn’t be selectively taking as gospel the spew of some ‘radical Islamists’ (not what he himself considers a reasonable assumption according to his above rant.), nor assume those who share his peculiar construction of reality constitutes the ‘rest of the world’.
There might once have been a muslim fundamentalist attack on American soil and there might be another one or even a first one, one day. In the meantime there are daily bombings and shootings of innocenty Muslkims going on by US troops. You have killed At least 150, 000 innocent civilians so far and and possibly twice that number, not to mention the radiation and poisoning from Depleted Uranium, for the rest of time in Iraq. All this because Somebody killed 3000 mostly Americans. Somebody did it and soembody had to pay. Never mind if the ones who pay are not involved, so lonmg as they are Muslims, the stupid Americans can be convinced they are somehow a threat.. That’s right a country with a Military Budget bigger than the combined budgets of the next twenty countries on the list. YET such a brave country of “World Policemen” actually live in fear of some of the weakest countries on the planet. They live in such abject and belly crawling fear that they are prepared to suspend all conventions on human rights, as well as use torture and killing of jouirnalists to keep things humming along. A country that is taking the killing of inmnpocent civilians to an industrial level. How can such a powerful nation be afraid of such poor and weak people. To hear you gutless wonders bleating about A bomb going off inside America any moment, as if ONE bloody bomb is going to bring your whole democracy crashing down in ruins. Maybe what you havbe is so fragile there is some truth to this.
In the meantime you big World Superheroes, the Iraqis don’t have to wonder if they are going to be getting any bombs dropped on their heads. They can be pretty sure that they will be getting bombed and shot at on a daily basis for a long time yet, and there are no maybes about it.
Twenty times the combined budgets of the next twenty nations….......................And still scared of its own shadow.
Whatever you guys are on, we keep telling you, we don’t want any. You keep on fighting the bogeymen, and just hope you can keep killing them at an exponential rate, because statistics are that for every civilian you kill you are getting two more insurgents committing to the cause. They are getting more and more pissed off and better armed. They will eventually spread out and come get you back in America. It is easy to get across the US border, Bush has opened it up to all comers it appears.
The more the worlds biggest yellow belly nation lashes out insanely at others, the more you are going to have to fear. Already America has become a despised and loathed nation, you cannot continue down the current path and not eventually come into conflict with the majority of the world’s people. It is so obvious that you guys are cruisin for a bruisin, and Rabbit thinks it can only be the intention. Nobody at world leader level could seriously expect the USA to create more enemies, destabilise the Middle East anymore and survive the blowback. You will not be the first nation to have lost its army in the sands of the middle east.
It takes a special kind of fool to have lost as much as George Bush has in five years. Lost the surplus, lost the environment, lost the country’s respect and standing in the world. Lost the Army and the country’s morale. Lost a city, and now it looks like he’ll lose the empire, all in a days work for the Shrub.
Rabbit says,
“Bush knew the WTC
WTH:
I also was watching at the time, so I guess that must prove in your twisted reasoning that I was in on the WTC attack also.
Do you claim you saw the first plane hit? That would only prove that you aren’t too observant. Something already proven.
One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
Last call for comments here :
Radioactive Wounds of War.
Attention all War Mongers and Attention all Peace Lovers
and Attention all Those Who Are On The Fence :
The linked thread is soon to be shut down. Comment while you still can.
The link is to the second last page (for now) to allow for some context to recent developments.
You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited. You saw this later, but at the initial time the first plane strike was not on TV, the video footage for this event came in later. The second crash was on TV, before the first was shown in video.
Of course for people who understand sourcing Rbbit would now post a link to the “proof” of this, but we already know that WTH lives in a completely theoretical unprovable universe, so for WTH the mere statement of this fact is all there is.
What this proves WTH is that you are of a shallow and inferior mindset, and are failing even now to comprehend the links between dots so close. As Luminous Beauty is alluding to, and as Rabbit can confirm at least from here on the “other half” of the ball we call earth, the attacks were shown on TV my small minded friend, but in the order of Second plane and much later the first plane. Bush says he saw the first plane hit the WTC, then he saw the second Plane.
Those who have realised the significance of this, in combination with other details, for the doubters, have revisited G W Bush on Video tape for those critical few minutes and have come to the unavoidable conclusion this guy knew about the news before it was given. He was not being given the news in first hand, although the timings show it was within minutes of the first strike, it is so obvious that he has just been given “news” of something which had been awaited in trepidation and which was of momentous import, it is wild. Bush looks like a kid caught with his hand in the cooky jar for several minutes.
Nobody needs sources for this of course?
Hey David…..........Ding Dong the witch is dead,......... The wicked witch is dead…............
DU thread is dead, Rabbit was penning a poem to Curious Dave when the Seamus he struck with his magical stave, and shut down the debate from Hell.
Hooray…............................^^.............................
Gues what WTH you have inadveratntly stumbled across something which destroys your case about internet and proof.
It is entirely possible to prove that the second plane crash was shown first on TV and the First plane crash much later. You see this then proves especially in combination with other evidence, that GWB was expecting the news. That he lied and by the way it can also be shown that the “special” press conference in which he announcd the attacks, was booked the day before the attacks.
WE CAN PROVE IT WTH, We kmow it is true. It is so well documented that Rabbit is referring to these “unheard of facts” (for you anyway) as if they were common knowledge. Rabbit is not co-ordinating any effort against WTH here, he is stating what is known to be facts among informed people with complete faith that the majority will already know what he is talking about.
They would ask for links if they doubted and Rabbit would provide all the sourcing necessary. WTH of course lives in a cartoon world where everything is made up like in the movies so nothing can be proven or relid on.
Rabbit says,
Fine WTH, but the whole point of this fact is that Bush claimed he saw the first plane strike, then he claimed to see the second strike.
Also when he is told by an aide, of the attack, sitting in front of a classromm, on video, the truth is quite apparent.
The aide leans in, whispers in Bush’s ear and imediately moves away. Supposedlt that ws the first Bush knew about it, and yet the aide didn’t even wait for a reply. Others with Rational minds and open eys, realsie this means Bush was not being informed of an unexpected event, otherwise, why does he sit for so long and do nothing? Why does nobody even expect him to do anything?, and why is he not being rushed into secure protection?
WTH, the debate is moving into areas of facts and speculation about what they mean, it is probably not a good idea you stick with this, because you won’t actually be able to kepp up. Just assume these are our “unprovable ideas”, and you have yours, and you don’t need to confuse yourself.
You may either believe Bush was steering the ship of state by powers of telepathy or you may believe nobody really knows if it was Bush in the Video maybe. Who knows what you believe? Who cares? Bush obviously knew the attacks were coming, and staff close to him certainly knew something too. Why wasn’t he being rushed off to safety by secret service?
Some interesting questions, just a blogger, but valid questions.
Rabbit says,
WTH, good point.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Now we can try to determine just how stupid the Bush Administration would have to be to explain all these pesky unanswered questions.
WTH as usual jumping beofre looking. So full of preconceptions he is incapable of ratuional discussion.
Rabbit really feels sorry for you sometimes WTH. You are such a dummy and yet you try so hard.
Rabbit is not basing aby opinion on this one fact. Rabbit has always been prepared to ascribe the same factors you do to Bush’s reaction and words, as a matter of fact. Trouble is my poor information starved friend, it is NOT the only evidence of Bush’s pre-knowledge.
Now shall we stick with the fact that Rabbit was “RIGHT” that Bush could not have seen the first plane hit, and shall we also rememeber the rest of the above post, which also provideds a much more compelling case for his foreknowledge. Any rational person would have seen the point being made and frankly only a Bush Lover could actually have avoided the obviopus conclusion you are able to satisfy yourself with. Problem is WTH that you have expressed a theory to explain Bush’s words, in this one example, now what about the pattern of him being told as referred to, or would you like to question the FACT again?
\
You see my newchum thinker, the process of informing oneself does not go , NEW FACT followed vby new theory. It goes with NEW FACTS being accumalated untill they create a plausible theory. So no jumping the gun with your gutless need to have an answer to everything as quick as a blink.
Nor os the rection and the pattern of actions give all the evidence by which Rabbit and many others conclude Bush knew beforehand. We have about twenty different facts which all collectively suggest the same thing, that is why. But for now, a dittohead is best to stick to gleaning facts and leaving the opinions until you have enough information that they mighjt be of some value.
for someone who is so sure Reality is hard to prove, you seem in a big hurry to crreate Opinions out of nothing.
Too bad about your perception of Rabbit as smug, for he is. This is Finally someone who get’s a criticism of Rabbit right…...........................SMUG….
Yes Rabbit is somewhat Smug in his knowledge but if you will notice that many other people on this site are in agreement with Rabbit about the things he is “Smug” about, this might not seem to be such an insult. If facing an opponent who has demostrated he has but a tenth of the information as you, and if you are completely confidant of your own case, then I’m sorry WTH it is hard noy to feel smug. In fact, it is a natural part of Rabbit’s personality that he is constantly trying to take the edge off his, “smugness” and softening the blows as much as possible. It was inevitable that a relatively smart opponent would finally pick up on this one and there at least two more criticisms which could viably be launched against Rabbit, which nobody has picked up on yet. Congratulations on a home run WTH and Rabbit had already put his money on you being the one who would finally get one where Rabbit is concerned.
You are falling way short of the mark by claiming that these few details of “Objective Analysis” of the “Subject” of George W Bush at the critical moments are ALL. by which we have based the opinion that he had foreknowledge. No WTH this was just FACTS, and we have about another dozen of varying importance alone which in combination give credence to our theory that Bush was being informed that things were happening according to foreknowledge.
We are examining facts which collectively point to one conclusion, and which also point away from the official LIE. There is no hurry to assume we have presented all the reasons why we have our opinions, that is your way, not ours. You see, rabbit and others like him, place a much higher price on their opinions as you. It is odd when one considers that someone like you is much more inclined to live or die on a particular opinion, it is you who will defend your opinion in the face of reasoning and facts, not us. Either of the above are enough to cause any of us to relingquish an opinion. Yet we will not necessarily adopt a new opinion, as you seem determined is the way. We may just prefer to accumalate facts and ideas before committing ourselves, a subtlety lost to you clowns. All you would be doing at this point if you were as rational as the majority of us, is accumalating facts and trying to compare your pre-conceptions with them. Just because you have about six imagined “facts” in your head about 911, don’t assume that we don’t have about -100- facts apiece and ours are all verifiable facts. Your “facts” are in the final anaysis only opinions. Facts exist which completely obliterate any of those opinions from being valid and thus there is no hurry to assume you have faced all there is about anything just from the first fact or two.
First Fact was that the statements of behaviour and actions of Bush were consistent with him having foreknowledge. Got it? Rabbit is smug about this, because it is. The FACTS we have just established, via your acceptance, actually we didn’t link to sources even, are that Bush didn’t show expected surprise and his staff didn’t expect any orders from him afetr giving the advice. we acn see that he was not conscidered to be in danger, which is also odd, in the first few minutes off such attacks, when before and sicne that day, a single airplane out of its flight path saw hime being evacuated,a and under major security.
WTH, if you don’t mind Rabbit would like to claim three specific facts above which are consistent with foreknowledge.
He claimed he saw the first hit. He was given a one way communique about the attcks. he was not placed under any special security precautions. 1….............2…...........3
Three bits of evidence he knew beforehand. Ready for three more WTH? These are actually only circumstantial, there is much better
Rabbit said,
“You did not see the first plane hit WTH, nobody had at the point of the story on TV at the time cited.
Rabbit has avoided nothing WTH. You admitted thought I that you didn’t see the first Plane crash before the second.
The point here is simply that Bush said he saw the first plane going into the WTC, which neither he, nor you could at that time have seen.
You are the one being stubborn. You have altered nothing about what has been written. Why do you go on about the first hole, we are talking about the plane actually crashing.
I can tell you you could not have seen the first plane going in, because nobody saw this on TV until later. We have television here too, by the way, and Rabbit was watching it live from not long after the first plane. Anyway since you are failing to comprehend the simple point about Bush having made a claim which was consistent with foreknowledge, why are you still trying to make a point about seeing a hole in WTC 1 before no 2 was hit? It isn’t the point, go back and read it. Meanwhile Rabbit will chase down some references in case you are trying to claim that the first plane strike was shown on TV before the second.
Understand that we are not talking about just the hole, but the plane actually hitting the building.
If you do get that much at least, how about we move onto some more things which also help in the theory of foreknowledge? Remembering that these are just three facts, and circumstantial at that. We have much more WTH but maybe you’d rather not go beyond this. It is a mystery really why you are still going on about this issue. What don’t you get about it?
Hey, Rabbit, read it again a bit slower.
Wrong WTH.
You have systematically failed at every turn to understand.
There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn’t be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
Bush is lying through his teeth here.
The link for this one, it sources back to originals
It is one of a number of facts which point to foreknowledge and in chorus especially, it is significant, stubborn fool.
The proof is here that I was right, and he said he saw something he could not have.
MY fact being correct allows me to use it towards an opinion which might stand up under scrutiny. Instead of half imagined ideas and crazy theories such as you and others like you seem prepared to believe in Despite evidence. you say you know what happened when you don’t, you only think you know. If you knew enough to know what you didn’t know it would be a start.
Rabbit droppings…
The deal which you are still ignoring is that it is consistent with Lies and with foreknowledge.
More important is the following
<blockquote>my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said,
Does WTH know anything about “The Project for a New American Century”? PNAC?
Does WTH know about the NORAD and CIA training exercises which contributed enormously to the success of 911 for the “Terrorists”?
These are two more things which make a very compelling case for administration officials involvement, they are far more substantial that the Bush words and reactions mentioned above.
Rabbit,
You are hopeless.
WTH Rabbit is actually full of hope. Someone who says he will not change his mind about anything, is telling an open minded and rational Rabbit, HE is hopeless?
Why couldn’t you answer the two simple questions? If you are not on this site to dicuss things logically and with the desire to learn if anything should come up, then why are you on this site at all?
Do you seriously think that anyone on this site, stands to gain from your opinions when you have largely rendered them useless with a stubborn refusal to allow them to be challenged or to defend them in a rational manner?
WTH, you need to do some serious self examination.
Are people like Scorp, Jay and Natalie, the sort of people you feel good being allied with? They are saying exactly the same things as you about most issues, because like you, they have been fed the official set of opinions. You don’t even realise the significance of this fact do you?
You had a great chance with the political spectrum graph, to see exactly what is going on here and yet you failed to see the pattern there too. I guess maybe I’ve been giving you too much credit. Too bad, with so many good attitudes, the truth about certain things would have made you an awesome advocate for the truth. You are still waddling around in the primeval sludge of Mass Opinion.
So unstaisfying trying to communicate with morons. Every time you think you have them on reasonable ground they balk at having to admit mistakes. Why is it hardest for people who make the most mistakes to admit even one? Or is the rationale the reverse? Those who find mistakes hardest to admit are the ones most likely to keep making them. That makes sense I guess.
........................................^^..................................................
register a new account »Posting Security