I’m confident your attorneys have advised that you may link to such comments with summary but should not add your own commentary.
I’m sure your attorney-flouting co-defendent Mark Steyn would be thrilled to draw fire with this bait.
I’m glad you are both in this fight. Ecclesiastes 4:10 pertains.
Not really on counsel’s advice, it just seems smart. Sort of like Valdemort.
Hansen and Mann respectively, arguably the two most damaging people to individual freedom and the economic prosperity of all humanity, especially the poorest individuals on the planet.
Obviously way worse that the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Idi Amin.
Possibly and arguably. The deal is that DDT wasn’t banned but the people in the affected countries knew where aid dollars were coming from, and the death toll from malaria easily exceeds that of that evil threesome.
You have to keep in mind that malaria isn’t strictly a Sub-Saharan tropical disease, it was once common in the U.S. until environmentally incorrect practices eradicated it here. And, yes, I am aware of the heavy use of DDT in cotton production and the possibility of insect resistance with its overuse. And a proper use is considered to be spraying the walls of rooms, especially of rooms occupied with the sick, with small quantities of the stuff to break the cycle of human-to-human vectored transmission.
I suspect you meant to be sarcastic in the commenting style that is fashionable on the Web by anonymous commenters, but yes, is is not obvious that Hansen and Mann will end up worse to humanity than the three dictators, but what Hansen and Mann are advocating could have a more global reach, just like DDT policy.
Actually, if their policy advice is taken, yes.
176 comments and counting. Something about the IRS thread has the Usual Suspects(tm) throwing everything they have into that fur ball yet I be surprised that this thread gets much traffic.
For a nothingburger scandal on which the Right Wing has all the facts wrong, the IRS deal is sure drawing a lot of attention from the Left. A person gets to wondering what has everyone that worried.
Paul, for the 176+ comments in the IRS conversation, create a bar graph showing posts per participant. You’ll quickly see that this is mostly a conversation between Jim and a few of the other regular commenters on Rand’s blog.
(My compliments to Jim for showing his usual patience and good naturedness.)
Hmmm, having looked over the IRS thread again, I would replace my comment above with this one:
Paul, there were only two people on the “Left” who posted on the IRS thread, Jim, and me. And I only briefly commented when Rand indicated interest in Rep Stockwell’s proposal to have Lois Lerner jailed. So this is just a conversation people are having with Jim, not an indication of interest from *anyone* else on the Left, let alone an indication of great interest!
“not an indication of interest from *anyone* else on the Left, let alone an indication of great interest!”
Yes, we know our friends on the left have no interest in the IRS scandal. They think the victims deserved what happened and have zero interest in holding the Obama administration accountable, unless it is to give them medals. Democrats hatred of Tea Party and other groups is so wrapped up in racial stereotypes and the dehumanization tactics employed by the Democrat activist community and political leaders.
Obama has even gone so far as to say that groups in opposition to him are funded and organized by foreign powers. It is like we are living in Venezuela or Cuba.
In case there was any misunderstanding: If X is true, Y can still not be an indication of X. You want to talk about whether X is true (go for it!) but I was merely talking about whether Y is an indication of X.
“Obama has even gone so far as to say that groups in opposition to him are funded and organized by foreign powers. ”
Do you have a link or a citation?
Hire apparatchiks, get apparatchik performance.
“My compliments to Jim for showing his usual patience and good naturedness.”
Yes, he is holding his own with his arguments and debating points.
I am familiar with people who are really good at debating, but it wasn’t until I visited England that I encountered people who were gifted at persuasion. The art is finding some common ground of agreement and leading a person in the direction you are going; the American style is pounding someone into the ground.
But my meta-question is why is Jim investing so much energy in that one thread when there are so many other questions he can correct Rand and the rest of us on?
As an added comment, as a visitor to Slovenia, I remarked to one of our hosts that the English were particularly skilled in propaganda. My host in a country newly liberated from the Yugoslav Socialist experiment exclaimed, “How can you say that, we have experienced propaganda!”
I suggested that the propaganda he was talking about was quite obvious, but what the British were good at was propaganda that you didn’t even know it was propaganda. “They” (the British) must have been doing something to hold that empire of their’s together for so long. My Slovenian friend looked at me and puzzled at this for a while, and a light-bulb of recognition of a political reality seemed to go off. The Yugoslav Socialists were really ham-fisted in their propaganda, but the British were probably the real masters pulling all the strings from behind the scenes, perhaps even the formation of Yugoslav Socialism under Josif Broz Tito as part of a Grand Strategy serving British interests.
Ann Althouse is now making noises as if she were moving from climate mainstream to climate contrarian.
“The question about climate changes is whether we should believe what are predictions of what will happen in the future that are based not on a percentage of certainty about the prediction — we’re not “95% sure” that it will happen — but on the percentage of experts who ascribe to the prediction. And I have no idea how sure the individual scientists are. They just agree with the other scientists. Who knows what motivations to agree lurk within their big brains? And who decided what is the set that counts as 100%? If believing what must be believed is what gets you into the set of experts, I’m surprised the number of experts who agree isn’t 100%. And obviously, if it were 100%, it wouldn’t mean that the prediction is 100% certain to occur.”
I wonder what fraction of Democratic voters consider her comment to be science-denial?
Me, I wonder what fraction of non-fallacious thinkers consider a phrase like “predictions of what will happen in the future” somewhat croggling. Are we to suppose that in the profession of law, and the teaching of law, there are predictions about events that may, but may not, happen in times past? Or happen at least concurrently and contemporariously with the prediction? I “predict” that Booth shoots Lincoln? I “predict” Althouse writes somewhat more fastly and loosely on her blog than in professional journals? I “predict” that Michael Mann will be upset by something posted on the internet on a day I am also going to be, or have been, commenting? What do 97% of usage experts think of this deployment of the word “predict”?
I’m confident your attorneys have advised that you may link to such comments with summary but should not add your own commentary.
I’m sure your attorney-flouting co-defendent Mark Steyn would be thrilled to draw fire with this bait.
I’m glad you are both in this fight. Ecclesiastes 4:10 pertains.
Not really on counsel’s advice, it just seems smart. Sort of like Valdemort.
Hansen and Mann respectively, arguably the two most damaging people to individual freedom and the economic prosperity of all humanity, especially the poorest individuals on the planet.
Obviously way worse that the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Idi Amin.
Possibly and arguably. The deal is that DDT wasn’t banned but the people in the affected countries knew where aid dollars were coming from, and the death toll from malaria easily exceeds that of that evil threesome.
You have to keep in mind that malaria isn’t strictly a Sub-Saharan tropical disease, it was once common in the U.S. until environmentally incorrect practices eradicated it here. And, yes, I am aware of the heavy use of DDT in cotton production and the possibility of insect resistance with its overuse. And a proper use is considered to be spraying the walls of rooms, especially of rooms occupied with the sick, with small quantities of the stuff to break the cycle of human-to-human vectored transmission.
I suspect you meant to be sarcastic in the commenting style that is fashionable on the Web by anonymous commenters, but yes, is is not obvious that Hansen and Mann will end up worse to humanity than the three dictators, but what Hansen and Mann are advocating could have a more global reach, just like DDT policy.
Actually, if their policy advice is taken, yes.
176 comments and counting. Something about the IRS thread has the Usual Suspects(tm) throwing everything they have into that fur ball yet I be surprised that this thread gets much traffic.
For a nothingburger scandal on which the Right Wing has all the facts wrong, the IRS deal is sure drawing a lot of attention from the Left. A person gets to wondering what has everyone that worried.
Paul, for the 176+ comments in the IRS conversation, create a bar graph showing posts per participant. You’ll quickly see that this is mostly a conversation between Jim and a few of the other regular commenters on Rand’s blog.
(My compliments to Jim for showing his usual patience and good naturedness.)
Hmmm, having looked over the IRS thread again, I would replace my comment above with this one:
Paul, there were only two people on the “Left” who posted on the IRS thread, Jim, and me. And I only briefly commented when Rand indicated interest in Rep Stockwell’s proposal to have Lois Lerner jailed. So this is just a conversation people are having with Jim, not an indication of interest from *anyone* else on the Left, let alone an indication of great interest!
“not an indication of interest from *anyone* else on the Left, let alone an indication of great interest!”
Yes, we know our friends on the left have no interest in the IRS scandal. They think the victims deserved what happened and have zero interest in holding the Obama administration accountable, unless it is to give them medals. Democrats hatred of Tea Party and other groups is so wrapped up in racial stereotypes and the dehumanization tactics employed by the Democrat activist community and political leaders.
Obama has even gone so far as to say that groups in opposition to him are funded and organized by foreign powers. It is like we are living in Venezuela or Cuba.
In case there was any misunderstanding: If X is true, Y can still not be an indication of X. You want to talk about whether X is true (go for it!) but I was merely talking about whether Y is an indication of X.
“Obama has even gone so far as to say that groups in opposition to him are funded and organized by foreign powers. ”
Do you have a link or a citation?
Hire apparatchiks, get apparatchik performance.
“My compliments to Jim for showing his usual patience and good naturedness.”
Yes, he is holding his own with his arguments and debating points.
I am familiar with people who are really good at debating, but it wasn’t until I visited England that I encountered people who were gifted at persuasion. The art is finding some common ground of agreement and leading a person in the direction you are going; the American style is pounding someone into the ground.
But my meta-question is why is Jim investing so much energy in that one thread when there are so many other questions he can correct Rand and the rest of us on?
As an added comment, as a visitor to Slovenia, I remarked to one of our hosts that the English were particularly skilled in propaganda. My host in a country newly liberated from the Yugoslav Socialist experiment exclaimed, “How can you say that, we have experienced propaganda!”
I suggested that the propaganda he was talking about was quite obvious, but what the British were good at was propaganda that you didn’t even know it was propaganda. “They” (the British) must have been doing something to hold that empire of their’s together for so long. My Slovenian friend looked at me and puzzled at this for a while, and a light-bulb of recognition of a political reality seemed to go off. The Yugoslav Socialists were really ham-fisted in their propaganda, but the British were probably the real masters pulling all the strings from behind the scenes, perhaps even the formation of Yugoslav Socialism under Josif Broz Tito as part of a Grand Strategy serving British interests.
Ann Althouse is now making noises as if she were moving from climate mainstream to climate contrarian.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/07/but-global-warming-is-occurring-that-is.html
“The question about climate changes is whether we should believe what are predictions of what will happen in the future that are based not on a percentage of certainty about the prediction — we’re not “95% sure” that it will happen — but on the percentage of experts who ascribe to the prediction. And I have no idea how sure the individual scientists are. They just agree with the other scientists. Who knows what motivations to agree lurk within their big brains? And who decided what is the set that counts as 100%? If believing what must be believed is what gets you into the set of experts, I’m surprised the number of experts who agree isn’t 100%. And obviously, if it were 100%, it wouldn’t mean that the prediction is 100% certain to occur.”
I wonder what fraction of Democratic voters consider her comment to be science-denial?
Me, I wonder what fraction of non-fallacious thinkers consider a phrase like “predictions of what will happen in the future” somewhat croggling. Are we to suppose that in the profession of law, and the teaching of law, there are predictions about events that may, but may not, happen in times past? Or happen at least concurrently and contemporariously with the prediction? I “predict” that Booth shoots Lincoln? I “predict” Althouse writes somewhat more fastly and loosely on her blog than in professional journals? I “predict” that Michael Mann will be upset by something posted on the internet on a day I am also going to be, or have been, commenting? What do 97% of usage experts think of this deployment of the word “predict”?