More OT Political Stuff

[Richard]

What a bunch of monkeys.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administratio
n_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril+.shtml

--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.

Net kooks: Part of the price we pay for free speech.

<><

[Weasel]

Yawn.....


"Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a09c87409eb8189897b9@news.verizon.net.. .
> What a bunch of monkeys.
>
> http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administratio
> n_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril+.shtml
>
> --
> For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
>
> Net kooks: Part of the price we pay for free speech.
>
> <><
>

[Richard]

weasel@bakerstreet.com wrote...
> Yawn.....

Sleep well.

> "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19a09c87409eb8189897b9@news.verizon.net.. .
> > What a bunch of monkeys.
> >
> > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administratio
> > n_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril+.shtml
> >
> > --
> > For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
> >
> > Net kooks: Part of the price we pay for free speech.
> >
> > <><
> >
>
>
>

--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:17:14 GMT, in rec.music.makers.guitar Richard
[] What a bunch of monkeys.
[]
[] http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administration_of_postwar_guerrilla_per il+.shtml

Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
the war:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html

Chris


--
"My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
-- Fabio
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Richard]

XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:17:14 GMT, in rec.music.makers.guitar Richard
> [] What a bunch of monkeys.
> []
> [] http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administration_of_postwar_guerrilla_per il+.shtml
>
> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
> the war:
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
>
> Chris

Great link. Danke.

--
For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
<><

['nuther Bob]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:30:00 GMT, Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote:



Yet another example of setting the outcome and then simply ignoring
any evidence that fails to support "the plan".

Maybe Bush spent too much time with that baseball team ?

Bob

[Grant]

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:

> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
> the war:
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html


My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.

Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.

[Grant]

Grant wrote:
> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
>
>> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
>> the war:
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
>>
>
>
>
> My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
> other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
> nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
> they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
> get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.
>
> Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
> dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
> Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
> their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
> rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.
>

follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. I'd be really, really
curious to see how that percentage would change if the poll were
restricted to people who actually got their news from a comprehensive
news source (e.g., a major daily, like LA Times, NYT, Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, etc., or even a foreign news source, like BBC) rather
than either their boob tube or their hometown rag.

And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
what Moe the bartender thinks.

[Bruce Morgen]

Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

>Grant wrote:
>> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
>>> the war:

[snip]
>
>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
>what Moe the bartender thinks.
>
Not that I think Dubya is
even remotely right about
the economy (or anything
else, for that matter),
but the real-world track
record of "people with
advanced degrees in
economics" probably isn't
any better than Moe's. I
got a big kick out of the
elder Bush's "voodoo
economics" comment back
in the day, because aside
from the erudite essays
and befuddling
mathematical models,
economics has always been
what amounts to academic
voodoo imo. Economists
are good at *describing*
economic conditions, but
notoriously feckless at
devising solutions. :-(

['nuther Bob]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:


>
>follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
>think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. <snip>

Not anymore. Those numbers are way down. The people in this
country are easily misled and easily bored.

>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
>what Moe the bartender thinks.

Well, I think that was already done. A link was posted here the other
day pointing at the fact that last week 10 nobel winning economists
took out a full page ad in major papers decrying the current tax cut
and current deficit spending.

Bob

[Grant]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

>>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
>>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
>>what Moe the bartender thinks.
>>
>
> Not that I think Dubya is
> even remotely right about
> the economy (or anything
> else, for that matter),
> but the real-world track
> record of "people with
> advanced degrees in
> economics" probably isn't
> any better than Moe's. I
> got a big kick out of the
> elder Bush's "voodoo
> economics" comment back
> in the day, because aside
> from the erudite essays
> and befuddling
> mathematical models,
> economics has always been
> what amounts to academic
> voodoo imo. Economists
> are good at *describing*
> economic conditions, but
> notoriously feckless at
> devising solutions. :-(


True. But as bad as economists might be at predicting the economy or
devising specific solutions (largely because of extraneous,
unpredictable variables, I think, like wars, politics, SARS outbreaks,
etc.), I would sooner trust an economist's view of "what makes sense"
(in light of the available information) than a politician's empty slogans.

[Grant]

'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>>follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
>>think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. <snip>
>
>
> Not anymore. Those numbers are way down. The people in this
> country are easily misled and easily bored.

They went down. But last I heard, they stopped going down further and
are now stable at somewhere near 60% (depending on the question you ask,
I suppose). That's concerning Iraq. On the economy, the numbers are
still sliding, I think.

>
>
>>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
>>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
>>what Moe the bartender thinks.
>
>
> Well, I think that was already done. A link was posted here the other
> day pointing at the fact that last week 10 nobel winning economists
> took out a full page ad in major papers decrying the current tax cut
> and current deficit spending.
>

wish I'd seen that. Not that anyone in power will pay any attention to
it anyway. :-(

[Bruce Morgen]

Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

>Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>>>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
>>>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
>>>what Moe the bartender thinks.
>>>
>>
>> Not that I think Dubya is
>> even remotely right about
>> the economy (or anything
>> else, for that matter),
>> but the real-world track
>> record of "people with
>> advanced degrees in
>> economics" probably isn't
>> any better than Moe's. I
>> got a big kick out of the
>> elder Bush's "voodoo
>> economics" comment back
>> in the day, because aside
>> from the erudite essays
>> and befuddling
>> mathematical models,
>> economics has always been
>> what amounts to academic
>> voodoo imo. Economists
>> are good at *describing*
>> economic conditions, but
>> notoriously feckless at
>> devising solutions. :-(
>
>
>True. But as bad as economists might be at predicting the economy or
>devising specific solutions (largely because of extraneous,
>unpredictable variables, I think, like wars, politics, SARS outbreaks,
>etc.),

Don't forget human psychology
-- stock, bond, and commodity
markets both reflect and
influence economic conditions.
They're notoriously susceptible
to emotions like greed, panic,
etc. -- and neither economists
nor shrinks can predict that
sort of stuff reliably.

>I would sooner trust an economist's view of "what makes sense"
>(in light of the available information) than a politician's empty >slogans.
>
That's sounds sensible until
you find out how hard it is
to get two economists to make
sense to each other, let
alone to a non-economist!

That said, I favor both the
economists and Moe over just
about any politician --
massively cutting taxes and
killing bad guys at great
expense simultaneously isn't
sensible to anyone but the
politicians and wacky neo-
con thank-tankers who cooked
it up and called it policy!

[Grant]

Bruce Morgen wrote:

> That said, I favor both the
> economists and Moe over just
> about any politician --
> massively cutting taxes and
> killing bad guys at great
> expense simultaneously isn't
> sensible to anyone but the
> politicians and wacky neo-
> con thank-tankers who cooked
> it up and called it policy!

My point exactly. But these policies take on an air of legitimacy when
a bunch of Elimidate rejects tell pollsters they think George W. is
"doing a good job" because they found a check for $800 in their mailbox
last week. I can't remember the last time I got so angry over someone
sending *me* an unexpected cash windfall. They're sending me money
looted from *my kids'* future income and/or standard of living, and I'm
supposed to be grateful.

[Dan Stanley]

"Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bhgrq9$4vn$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
>
> > Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
> > the war:
> >
> >
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
>
>
> My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
> other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
> nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
> they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
> get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.

Nah. Most people don't even read a newspaper. They aren't getting anything
more than soundbites from whatever shock jock they listen to on the car
radio.

> Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
> dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
> Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
> their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
> rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.

Well, don't forget that the NYT has it's own slant, and doesn't report stuff
that doesn't fit their agenda, either, or bury the stories deep or whatever.
( That's not a slam, just a fact. I read the Boston Globe daily, which is
owned by the NYT folks, and get most of my other news from public
radio...that ought to give some idea of my general political bent. I'm very
aware that those sources DO have a slant, though, and so I don't discount
any more conservative sources out of hand. There have been lots of important
things that the Globe didn't cover, while, for example, the WSJ *did*.)

As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
manipulative. Never forget that.

Dan

['nuther Bob]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:11:47 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

>They're sending me money
>looted from *my kids'* future income and/or standard of living, and I'm
>supposed to be grateful.

Your kids future ? This latest tax cut is screwing us all over with
a dramatic short term rise in the deficit and is strangling any
recovery. Of course, only "liberals" like Greenspan are in agreement
with me.

Bob

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:
[] Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
[]
[] > Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
[] > the war:
[] >
[] > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
[]
[] My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
[] other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
[] nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
[] they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
[] get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.
[]
[] Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
[] dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
[] Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
[] their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
[] rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.

To be fair, the Seattle Times certainly has their left bent (and their
competitor is currently a business partner), and has never been
considered to be a centerist source of political info. I mean, c'mon
now, even as a leftist myself, I can see the article is severely
slanted.

That said, the column is interesting.

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Mike McKernan]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

>Grant wrote:
>
>follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
>think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. I'd be really, really
>curious to see how that percentage would change if the poll were
>restricted to people who actually got their news from a comprehensive
>news source (e.g., a major daily, like LA Times, NYT, Washington Post,
>Chicago Tribune, etc., or even a foreign news source, like BBC) rather
>than either their boob tube or their hometown rag.
>
"Even" a foreign news source? I've said it before and I'll say it
again...I subscribe to the NYT and the WSJ and for a long time
starting about a month for for the war, they looked like mirror
images.

I heard about the "Nigerian uranium" months before my neighbors, not
because I read the Times, but because I travel overseas for work. Much
of what we're thinking about as "new news" has been common knowledge
overseas for a year.

['nuther Bob]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:31:03 GMT, Mike McKernan
<mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:

>I heard about the "Nigerian uranium" months before my neighbors, not
>because I read the Times, but because I travel overseas for work. Much
>of what we're thinking about as "new news" has been common knowledge
>overseas for a year.

Actually, I read the stories about it being disproved in the Boston
Globe months and months before it became "news". I'm not saying that
the Globe was some sort of pioneer, just that the information was
circulating around long before anybody paid any attention to it.
That seems to happen a lot... you read about something nefarious
going on and it takes a year or more sometimes before it becomes
interesting to the public.

Bob

[John S. Shinal]

"Dan Stanley" wrote:

>Nah. Most people don't even read a newspaper. They aren't getting anything
>more than soundbites from whatever shock jock they listen to on the car
>radio.

Sheeminy. Whatever Chuck can get out in a complete sentence
before Imus interrupts him. Chilling.


>> Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
>> dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.

The traditional news sources seem to gleefully ignore that a
lot of people are going straight to the Internet newswires. Generally
the morning's UPI, AP, AFP, and BBC over the 'net ends up on the 6 PM
news, or the following morning's paper.


>As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
>manipulative. Never forget that.

Centrist. %-|

The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
*I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.

T'aint comforting.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

['nuther Bob]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:07:16 GMT,
jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) wrote:

>
> The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
>*I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
>about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.

I hear ya. Also, the few facts they choose to present or the words
they choose often give a story a very odd slant from the full truth.
I cut them some slack since they usually have 30 seconds for an entire
story, but they really do distort it one way or the other most of
the time.

Bob

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Mike McKernan <mikemck333@optonline.net> so eloquently put:
[] On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:
[]
[] >Grant wrote:
[] >
[] >follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
[] >think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. I'd be really, really
[] >curious to see how that percentage would change if the poll were
[] >restricted to people who actually got their news from a comprehensive
[] >news source (e.g., a major daily, like LA Times, NYT, Washington Post,
[] >Chicago Tribune, etc., or even a foreign news source, like BBC) rather
[] >than either their boob tube or their hometown rag.
[] >
[] "Even" a foreign news source? I've said it before and I'll say it
[] again...I subscribe to the NYT and the WSJ and for a long time
[] starting about a month for for the war, they looked like mirror
[] images.

This is even more easily demonstrated on the web. Pull up any of the
major news sourness, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, CBC, ABC, even the North
American coverage on BBC (an otherwise fine site) -- it's as if
they're all wired into one feed.

Then there's the news portals--the sites that don't produce their own
news, but pipe it through from many sources, such as news.google, and
Yahoo News. They can (and do) pick news from any of several dozen
world news sources, but they stories that bubble up to the top are the
same. Power outage, Hambali, Lockerbie, Recall vote, Microsoft update
worm, Mel Gibson's Jesus slant, Bush: "wake up call", etc. ****ing
etc. Formula. Formula that, tellingly, works.

Even http://www.democracynow.org seems to be toeing the line, on the
top stories, but if you scroll down, the goodies are there.

To wit: Here's a story from them, pre-war:

"On Friday, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors gave their latest
report.

Overall, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix reported the inspections are
yielding results. He said Iraq is cooperating much more than it did in
the 1990s and that this cooperation has accelerated over the past
month. In particular, Blix said Iraq's destruction of its al-Samoud 2
missiles constituted QUOTE "a substantial measure of disarmament."

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed
ElBaradei said a key piece of evidence the US has used was faked.

After a careful investigation, UN and independent experts concluded
that documents purportedly showing Iraqi officials tried to buy
uranium in Africa two years ago were not authentic. The Bush
administration was using the documents to claim Iraq is developing a
nuclear weapons program."
[...]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0320248&mode=thread&tid=6

Uh-huh. No way this got to Bush, Rice, or any of their staff.
Riiiiiight.

[] I heard about the "Nigerian uranium" months before my neighbors, not
[] because I read the Times, but because I travel overseas for work. Much
[] of what we're thinking about as "new news" has been common knowledge
[] overseas for a year.

Right, but as you say, the info is available -- it just isn't fed to
the masses through major channels.

Why? Because the so-called "liberal-media" is nothing but a myth. That
sounds fallacious, because it's the hard right that often dismisses
the media this way--even though it's the same media that filters the
truth from us--but it's not important that theirs a 2nd tier of
conservatives spouting this. Apparently, there's enough on the 1st
tier to get it done.

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As "Dan Stanley" <vze2bjcf@verizon.net> so eloquently put:
[] > My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
[] > other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
[] > nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
[] > they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
[] > get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.
[]
[] Nah. Most people don't even read a newspaper. They aren't getting anything
[] more than soundbites from whatever shock jock they listen to on the car
[] radio.

The 11 O'clock news is really no better.

[] > Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
[] > dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
[] > Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
[] > their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
[] > rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.
[]
[] Well, don't forget that the NYT has it's own slant, and doesn't report stuff
[] that doesn't fit their agenda, either, or bury the stories deep or whatever.

It's true. But the NYT is still a relatively centrist pub, relatively.
However, they do filter.

Why do they filter? They don't rely on grants, public funding, or
anything similar. They rely on sponsorship. Could it be that their
sponsors bear enough weight on them to, say, not put the "Niger
evidence faked" evidence on the front page?

Good question. So who are their larger sponsors?

[] ( That's not a slam, just a fact. I read the Boston Globe daily, which is
[] owned by the NYT folks, and get most of my other news from public
[] radio...that ought to give some idea of my general political bent. I'm very
[] aware that those sources DO have a slant, though, and so I don't discount
[] any more conservative sources out of hand. There have been lots of important
[] things that the Globe didn't cover, while, for example, the WSJ *did*.)

Even the alternative sources have pressures. It's not a slant, so much
as it is "we know that if we publish this, we lose funding".

Google this: "ford foundation pacifica"

[] As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
[] manipulative. Never forget that.

Okay.

Wait... what was the middle thing again?

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) so
eloquently put:
[] "Dan Stanley" wrote:
[]
[] >> Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
[] >> dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
[]
[] The traditional news sources seem to gleefully ignore that a
[] lot of people are going straight to the Internet newswires. Generally
[] the morning's UPI, AP, AFP, and BBC over the 'net ends up on the 6 PM
[] news, or the following morning's paper.

This isn't scientific or anything, but I was recently a member of a
jury. We were all asked what our sources of news was. Sure, a few of
us answered like I did: various internet news sources.

But most answered in the mainstream: TV news or the local papers. I
estimate that I was one of perhaps 3-4 folks in 40-some that answered
otherwise. The jury was, of course, random, but was chosen amongst
voters (I think), which is an interesting point.

[] >As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
[] >manipulative. Never forget that.
[]
[] Centrist. %-|
[]
[] The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
[] *I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
[] about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "dumbed down"

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Les Cargill]

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:07:16 GMT,
> jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) wrote:
>
> >
> > The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
> >*I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
> >about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.
>
> I hear ya. Also, the few facts they choose to present or the words
> they choose often give a story a very odd slant from the full truth.
> I cut them some slack since they usually have 30 seconds for an entire
> story, but they really do distort it one way or the other most of
> the time.
>
> Bob

The newsies all work on the same basic model. The newsies have ratings
and viewership requirements. They design the material as entertainment
product to be consumed to optimize these goals.

It's their t000ne, man.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike McKernan]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 04:29:03 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
<XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:

>As Mike McKernan <mikemck333@optonline.net> so eloquently put:
>
>Why? Because the so-called "liberal-media" is nothing but a myth. That
>sounds fallacious, because it's the hard right that often dismisses
>the media this way--even though it's the same media that filters the
>truth from us--but it's not important that theirs a 2nd tier of
>conservatives spouting this. Apparently, there's enough on the 1st
>tier to get it done.
>
For the most part, the "liberal media" is not a myth. It does exist,
more so on broadcast TV news than in print.

On the other hand, conservative media exists, too...not just on Fox
News, but there is an organized channel to produce pro-right books and
more subtle info services; these, expectedly, are moew neo-con than
old-line right.

Here's an interesting pair of books written by media sources who once
helped slant public opinion, until they both decided they'd sleep
better at night if they came clean:

o "Bias" was written by David Goldberg, whose job it had been to
help CBS News slant hard left.
o "Blinded by the Right", by David Brock. Even after this book
was published, his earlier pro-right books "The Real Anita Hill" and
"The Selection of Hillary Rodham" are often quoted as factual and
unbiased sources of anti-liberal info.

Both are downright scary in a society who's decisions are based on the
freedom if information to the masses.

['nuther Bob]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:19:37 GMT, Mike McKernan
<mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:

>
>Both are downright scary in a society who's decisions are based on the
>freedom if information to the masses.


News is a commercial business. You shouldn't expect it to be unbiased.

Bob "They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true" :-)

[Twang]

"'nuther Bob" <nooneyet@nowwhere.net> wrote in message
news:91ftjvglgtq3ssi54sphn0t6ck2sk11rdd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:19:37 GMT, Mike McKernan
> <mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Both are downright scary in a society who's decisions are based on the
> >freedom if information to the masses.
>
>
> News is a commercial business. You shouldn't expect it to be unbiased.

I just wonder how the ethics of journalism plays out agains commercial
venture here.
Damn the integrity full marketing ahead.

I quit watching CNN well before the stinking 'war' was over, because after
using the web, and watching BBC news, I realized they sucked.

Today the 'worlds most trusted news source' did a full half hour on Lisa
Marie I Cant Sing **** Presely.
It was fluff. Using her old mans 'legacy' *king of ****, maybe* and memory
and tugging at heartstrings throughout. Lisa Piggee grunting her boring
songs in her no range monotone in the background.
News, my ass.

Twang!

> Bob "They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true" :-)

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Mike McKernan <mikemck333@optonline.net> so eloquently put:
[] <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:
[] >As Mike McKernan <mikemck333@optonline.net> so eloquently put:
[] >
[] >Why? Because the so-called "liberal-media" is nothing but a myth.
[] >
[] For the most part, the "liberal media" is not a myth. It does exist,
[] more so on broadcast TV news than in print.

Where? I don't mean to call you on this in a defensive posture, but I
honestly can't think of a single major media source that you can
earmark as liberal.

(Acknowledging your reference books to sources on the subject, and
will investigate--thanks)

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Grant]

John S. Shinal wrote:

> The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
> *I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
> about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.
>
> T'aint comforting.

Ever since I was an observer of both the trial and the press coverage of
an acquaintance who shot his wife (by his own admission but claiming
self-defense), I have lost all faith in (1) the fairness of the court
system, and (2) the correctness and fairness of press coverage of
criminal trials.

I had firsthand knowledge of a number of the facts connected with the
case, and both the trial and the newspaper managed to mangle these
beyond recognition, invariably to the defendant's disadvantage.

I can no longer take in a newspaper or TV account of a criminal case
without wondering how much of the information is totally bogus.

God help the truly innocent individual who gets caught in the wheels of
"justice".

- Grant

['nuther Bob]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:59:58 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:


>I can no longer take in a newspaper or TV account of a criminal case
>without wondering how much of the information is totally bogus.

How true. Even just watching something like a Court TV trial, and
then hearing the "summary" on the nightly news gives you an insight.
Watching something Congressional on CSpan, then seeing the reporting
that night really opens up your eyes.

>God help the truly innocent individual who gets caught in the wheels of
>"justice".

Bigger issue. I have been friendly with a forensic scientist over the
last couple of years. The stories he can tell you about the cops,
DA's, and state labs tainting, ignoring, or distorting evidence would
scare the $hit right out of you (And he works with them as often as
he does with defense attorney's, so it's not just bias. He has had
to "clarify" what the evidence really means many times to a
hotheaded DA).

Bob

[Richard]

norealaddy@somephonydomain.com wrote...
> Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >I can no longer take in a newspaper or TV account of a criminal case
> >without wondering how much of the information is totally bogus.
>
> How true. Even just watching something like a Court TV trial, and
> then hearing the "summary" on the nightly news gives you an insight.
> Watching something Congressional on CSpan, then seeing the reporting
> that night really opens up your eyes.

Very very very true.

[Twang]

"'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
news:16v4kvsbd4jsbvi42a04k3ivr5jpkvvfv3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:59:58 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >I can no longer take in a newspaper or TV account of a criminal case
> >without wondering how much of the information is totally bogus.
>
> How true. Even just watching something like a Court TV trial, and
> then hearing the "summary" on the nightly news gives you an insight.
> Watching something Congressional on CSpan, then seeing the reporting
> that night really opens up your eyes.
>
> >God help the truly innocent individual who gets caught in the wheels of
> >"justice".
>
> Bigger issue. I have been friendly with a forensic scientist over the
> last couple of years. The stories he can tell you about the cops,
> DA's, and state labs tainting, ignoring, or distorting evidence would
> scare the $hit right out of you (And he works with them as often as
> he does with defense attorney's, so it's not just bias. He has had
> to "clarify" what the evidence really means many times to a
> hotheaded DA).
>
> Bob

two words.
Nancy Grace.

as for the rest of this, I hate to say it, but I watched almost every minute
of the OJ trial..
no matter how anyone feels about his guilt or innocense..
what I saw on the local and network news reporting the days events was NOT
what I had just observed in any way.
Those stations also always were perfectly sure, night after night, that he'd
go down.
Watching the thing myself, I couldn't see how he could lose.

Since that event, I've paid a lot more attention to how the news media
handles things.
And all I've learned since then is this:
they are barely worth watching, and never unbiased.

So, I don't watch without taking it all with a shaker of salt handy.

Twang!

[Mike McKernan]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:21:12 GMT, 'nuther Bob <nooneyet@nowwhere.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:19:37 GMT, Mike McKernan
><mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>News is a commercial business. You shouldn't expect it to be unbiased.

Nope, I know better. Even if I hadn't figured it out, I have a friend
who works on one of the News/Discussion shows. The critical part of
their day is not the 3-6 hours the personalities spend in front of the
camera, it's the meetings before and after. During taping, no one even
thinks about the fact that they're speaking to millions of
viewers...after awhile, it's just like a little skit that goes on
every day, another day in the office.

Apparently, in those meetings, no one ever asks about whether what
they're reporting is true. They talk about ratings, mostly. They also
discuss what can be said safely. This doesn't mean factuality, it
means that when they're libeling a non-public figure, they first make
sure that their target won't have the resources to successfully sue or
force a settlement. Smetimes they even risk the settlement if they
think it will come cheap and if the story is "buzzworthy".

The most disturbing part is a feeling on their part that there will
always be a portion of their viewing audience who will always support
them and defend them, even when their facts are proven wrong. They
depend on this audience, and they get it.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Mike McKernan <mikemck333@optonline.net> so eloquently put:
[...]
[] The most disturbing part is a feeling on their part that there will
[] always be a portion of their viewing audience who will always support
[] them and defend them, even when their facts are proven wrong. They
[] depend on this audience, and they get it.

Wait... are we talking about a news group or the current US
administration?

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:
[] John S. Shinal wrote:
[]
[] > The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
[] > *I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
[] > about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.
[] >
[] > T'aint comforting.
[]
[] Ever since I was an observer of both the trial and the press coverage of
[] an acquaintance who shot his wife (by his own admission but claiming
[] self-defense), I have lost all faith in (1) the fairness of the court
[] system, and (2) the correctness and fairness of press coverage of
[] criminal trials.

I would be interested to hear more of your viewpoints regarding point
1. I've not had your experience, but I've been on several jury
selection events, and I've been wondering about the effectiveness of
our jury selection process.

It all comes under the pretense of weeding out potential jurors who
may not be able to judge impartially, and yet, it seems to me that in
most cases, bias is often exactly what they are seeking. Each side
seeks to weed out those that don't seem likely to side with their
case, while selecting those that could be sympathetic to their case.

For example, in a weapon related case, the defense will want to
dismiss anti-gun jurors, but

As for point number 2, word: I've lost faith in the media a long while
back.

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Mike McKernan]

Not A Speck Of Cereal <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message news:<biq5kvkq7d0l2k3ea0ohcr1ui2ba0lv2k2@4ax.com>...
>
> Wait... are we talking about a news group or the current US
> administration?
>
The line does get blurry, doesn't it?

[John S. Shinal]

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:

>I think the phrase you're looking for is "dumbed down"

It's a pandemic, and it is partly to cause for the increasing
stupidity of the American citizenry. Once Upon A Newscast, you could
learn things from reportage - Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Ernie Pyle,
and many others actually reported with some slant, but they were
information heavy. Since there was a limited amount of time or
paperspace for the info to be placed in, they made every word count.
There was a lot of meat, and little filler.

The advent of 24hr news has utterly reversed that. We now have
people babbling vapidly to fill dead airtime, or sop up white
paperspace on a website. Unsupported conjecture, faulty logic,
strawmen and red herrings abound.

Garbage in, garbage out. People that unquestioningly and
uncritically sponge up modern news are being made more stupid. Not to
disparage the genre (well, OK a little), but I think the root
education of the latest generation of journalists is lousy. They're
illogical, and not the slaves to truth I feel they should be.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John S. Shinal]

'nuther Bob wrote:
>Bigger issue. I have been friendly with a forensic scientist over the
>last couple of years. The stories he can tell you about the cops,
>DA's, and state labs tainting, ignoring, or distorting evidence would
>scare the $hit right out of you (And he works with them as often as
>he does with defense attorney's, so it's not just bias. He has had
>to "clarify" what the evidence really means many times to a
>hotheaded DA).

I work tangentially with some of those guys, too. There are
some of their peers they flatly acknowledge (accuse) of being
prejudicial. Though grudgingly in favor of capital punishment for some
vicious crimes, I have major problems with DAs who are career climbers
or control freaks trying those cases.

Alas poor objectivity, we hardly knew ye.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Les Cargill]

"John S. Shinal" wrote:
>
> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
>
> >I think the phrase you're looking for is "dumbed down"
>
> It's a pandemic,

I'm not so sure. The kidz, at least the ones on the bleeding edge are
smarter, faster and stronger than humans have ever been.

WHat you do have is a large population of cattle-brained ones,
partly from the drugs ( prescribed or not), partly from
the general force used to make 'em passive, partly from
just being *very* convinced they're just taking up space
after all.

> and it is partly to cause for the increasing
> stupidity of the American citizenry. Once Upon A Newscast, you could
> learn things from reportage - Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Ernie Pyle,
> and many others actually reported with some slant,

*Some* slant?!? Howzabout a metric boatload of slant. Not that
there's anything wrong with that. Those guys
just more or less fell into TeeVee, anyway.

> but they were
> information heavy. Since there was a limited amount of time or
> paperspace for the info to be placed in, they made every word count.
> There was a lot of meat, and little filler.
>

And there you go. It's the "57 channels and nothing on" syndrome,
and nothing else.

Here's the deal. Some bunch of investors looks at an existing media
circus, and models an enterprise on that. They are wrong, dead
wrong in all aspects of the model, but it's enough to get
it rolling. Then they have to cost cut the thing to make the interest
payments, so you get less and less substantive materiel, on
average.

But I think you probably get brighter bright spots than you
once would have. I do not remember anything of the quality of
Charlie Rose nor Frontline on there before them.

> The advent of 24hr news has utterly reversed that. We now have
> people babbling vapidly to fill dead airtime, or sop up white
> paperspace on a website. Unsupported conjecture, faulty logic,
> strawmen and red herrings abound.
>


Look at 60 minutes, old ones. You had Mike Wallace picking
fights with people, making entertainment out of it. This
is not new.

Paddy Chaefsky's "Network" was not written in a vaccuum - it
was written when the transition from a New York stage
model to an LA film model happened. It's prescience is
because Paddy was a sharp guy, but the bile is because
he didn't follow the economics properly - he *assumed* that
writers would continue to be central.

> Garbage in, garbage out. People that unquestioningly and
> uncritically sponge up modern news are being made more stupid. Not to
> disparage the genre (well, OK a little), but I think the root
> education of the latest generation of journalists is lousy. They're
> illogical, and not the slaves to truth I feel they should be.
>

I do not beleive for one minute it's accidental. The management
of news organization have thier ear to the ground for whatever
tests.

First off, those tests are utter nonsense - anybody who believes they
can ask people what they really want is deluded. Second, the self-bias
of the people's mental models in the testing itself evinces. Third,
the whole thing is so obsessed with showing some sort of social
positivism that nothing of that really makes any sense much
at all anymore.

Here's the way I look at it. Those people spend a lot of money
gathring and collating focus group/poll data, and that's what
ends up on the screen. So none of it is *really* garbage, anyway.

You get a good print of the human mind up there on the TeeVee,
without spending a cent.

> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


--
Les Cargill

[John S. Shinal]

Les Cargill wrote:
>I'm not so sure. The kidz, at least the ones on the bleeding edge are
>smarter, faster and stronger than humans have ever been.

Agreed, but they're the upper limit (range) and neither the
mean nor the average. The best are indeed better than ever, but I see
best as being a declining percentage, strictly due to humans breeding
out intelligence on both a US and global scale.


>What you do have is a large population of cattle-brained ones,
>partly from (snip good examples)

Dumb careless people breed a lot. Smart careful people breed
less. I'd like to be wrong about that, but it appears to be the case.
NO, I don't advocate eugenics (in fact it's repulsive), but if Darwin
is even half-right we have a disturbing trend afoot.

>> learn things from reportage - Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Ernie Pyle,
>> and many others actually reported with some slant,
>
>*Some* slant?!? Howzabout a metric boatload of slant.

Sure, I was generalizing. That was back when the Establishment
was getting its rep, and the counterculture was just getting some real
traction as a significant force. What is interesting is what has
happened to those former viewpoints as they evolved into our current
right and left leaning constituencies and lobbies.


>But I think you probably get brighter bright spots than you
>once would have. I do not remember anything of the quality of
>Charlie Rose nor Frontline on there before them.

Mmm. Charlie's a GREAT example, truly. Again, I think that is
the limit of the upper edge, and neither the average nor the mean of
the total range of reportage-feeding-the-intellect-of-the-populace.
We get darker darks, too. Jenny Jones, for example.


>Look at 60 minutes, old ones. You had Mike Wallace picking
>fights with people, making entertainment out of it. This
>is not new.

"But sir, isn't it true that..."

Emotion is a compelling hook, but that probably started with
the journalism of the Tammany Hall era in the US, and Edwardian times
in the English press. Like much else, it's evolved into a turbocharged
version today.

>I do not beleive for one minute it's accidental. The management
>of news organization have thier ear to the ground for whatever
>tests.

And if people are getting dumber or more ignorant, it's hard
to imagine that they're going to get highminded results in their
marketing surveys. This testing-driving-content model is probably a
major flaw if intelligence and high concepts are to be prominent in
media.


>First off, those tests are utter nonsense - anybody who believes they
>can ask people what they really want is deluded.

Yep. Work with the public and this becomes glaringly clear.

>Second, the self-bias of the people's mental models in the testing itself

Or the bias in the test structure. This is the educational gap
I was referring to. Survey questions routinely annoy me - you ask a
slanted question, you get a slanted answer, which is then presented as
a fact - or worst as a "factoid" whatever that is. It's a
brainwashing, but not even a malicious one, just a slack and careless
job that results in brainwashing. "Ah, who cares anyway. Who is John
Galt ?"


>Third, the whole thing is so obsessed with showing some sort of social
>positivism that nothing of that really makes any sense much
>at all anymore.

I think this goes either way. There's plenty of negativism out
there, depending on who's grinding the axe.


>Here's the way I look at it. Those people spend a lot of money
>gathring and collating focus group/poll data, and that's what
>ends up on the screen.

Understood. It's the idea that you'd want to do things that
way that I question (sure, I grok the $$$ angle). But I can be
delusionally altrustic on such matters. Ask me about long term
industrialization of the planet sometime when I'm drunk.

>So none of it is *really* garbage, anyway.

OK I was unclear. I meant that if you feed people dumb stuff,
you don't make them smarter.

<wrenching thread on topic>

A similar "it tested well" model has had an unfortunate
influence on modern music. All bad, no. The best way to elevate
ourselves, our art and our goals, well - I don't think so.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Les Cargill]

"John S. Shinal" wrote:
>
> Les Cargill wrote:
> >I'm not so sure. The kidz, at least the ones on the bleeding edge are
> >smarter, faster and stronger than humans have ever been.
>
> Agreed, but they're the upper limit (range) and neither the
> mean nor the average. The best are indeed better than ever, but I see
> best as being a declining percentage, strictly due to humans breeding
> out intelligence on both a US and global scale.
>

Maybe I'm wrong, but I figure it's ultimately the top
one-to-ten percent that really matter in terms of
being real dragonslayers. The rest of us are more or
less freeriding them. And by "top" here, I do not
necessarily mean in terms of Standford-Binet.

And what the farg exactly *is* intelligence, anyway?
SAT scores? 4.0 grade averages? Dependent on context,
either of those ( or anything like 'em ) could be
massive liabilities.

But yeah. If you take a strictly Darwinian/Dr Strangelove
view, what really *is* the effect of something like birth
control, or antibiotics?

> >What you do have is a large population of cattle-brained ones,
> >partly from (snip good examples)
>
> Dumb careless people breed a lot. Smart careful people breed
> less.

But it's not that determined. Eugenics is a crock. Eugenics is
so bad it isn't even wrong.

> I'd like to be wrong about that, but it appears to be the case.
> NO, I don't advocate eugenics (in fact it's repulsive), but if Darwin
> is even half-right we have a disturbing trend afoot.
>

Darwin doesn't apply here. Darwin is much coarser-grained than this -
we're talking the jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens - which
is largely architectural and *much* more difference than any two
marginal humans you can think of. The pre-human homonids were
*profoundly* less-abled than humans, not just slightly different.

Stephen Jay Gould arguably was the best evolutionist around, and
his stuff shines a lot of light on this, although
his prose is turgid. But mainly, he hated determinism pretty
profoundly and was pretty good at killing off the last vestiges of it.
I wish I understood his stuff better, but it's largely
over my head.

The main thing he says, though is that there is no general
Standard of Excellence against which to judge - that when
people try to well-order sets of attributes, they inkblot
some sort of pattern from thier own mind onto the data, and
end up being fools. He calls it "reification", and it
basically un-asks the entire question.

Attribute fitness is totally, totally dependent on context - like
when the last ice age happened - and We Cannot Possibly Know
what is best.

> >> learn things from reportage - Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Ernie Pyle,
> >> and many others actually reported with some slant,
> >
> >*Some* slant?!? Howzabout a metric boatload of slant.
>
> Sure, I was generalizing. That was back when the Establishment
> was getting its rep, and the counterculture was just getting some real
> traction as a significant force.

Oh heh. The counterculture has always been a bunch of marginal
people. They either get de-marginalized or they atrophy.

It's not like, say the Stones or Tom Wolfe are really
"counterculture" - they're mainstream, now. And Woody
Guthrie was always more radical than any of 'em.


> What is interesting is what has
> happened to those former viewpoints as they evolved into our current
> right and left leaning constituencies and lobbies.
>

Well, it's like the difference between a design on paper
and the first prototype. Reality has some things to
say about things, after all - and we can dream up all
kinda meshugga nonsense. What you see now is the
real thing - it's two groups with ever so slightly
a different tach on the same thing. Mainly, it's about
redistribution, religion and reproduction. Maybe
also rifles. Nothing else can really be argued about.

To me, this says the system works. You cannot have a
senator from Alabama who cries "states rights" when
he means "Jim Crow". There's a dozen things like that
since WWII. We have a good system, today, warts and all.

> >But I think you probably get brighter bright spots than you
> >once would have. I do not remember anything of the quality of
> >Charlie Rose nor Frontline on there before them.
>
> Mmm. Charlie's a GREAT example, truly. Again, I think that is
> the limit of the upper edge, and neither the average nor the mean of
> the total range of reportage-feeding-the-intellect-of-the-populace.
> We get darker darks, too. Jenny Jones, for example.
>

Yeah, but is that worse than the freak show Barnum put together? Look
at Cotton Mather - that guy knew almost nothing of any scientific
or physical science nature that would be considered valid, and he
was probably top end, leading edge for his time.

> >Look at 60 minutes, old ones. You had Mike Wallace picking
> >fights with people, making entertainment out of it. This
> >is not new.
>
> "But sir, isn't it true that..."
>
> Emotion is a compelling hook, but that probably started with
> the journalism of the Tammany Hall era in the US, and Edwardian times
> in the English press. Like much else, it's evolved into a turbocharged
> version today.
>

Ever read some of the stuff from op-ed around 1900? They had better
formal language skills, but the rhetoric was *just* as heated,
if not moreso, than it is now. You had actual libel, now and
again. Before that, some of the stuff said, say, about Lincoln
was *very* emotionally charged.

I think they had better formal language because there was no
audio or visual media, so it's like the print muscles were more
important. That, and everybody beleived that "higher speech" was
a common good.

> >I do not beleive for one minute it's accidental. The management
> >of news organization have thier ear to the ground for whatever
> >tests.
>
> And if people are getting dumber or more ignorant, it's hard
> to imagine that they're going to get highminded results in their
> marketing surveys. This testing-driving-content model is probably a
> major flaw if intelligence and high concepts are to be prominent in
> media.
>

Why is intelligence or high-concept stuff relevant to media? It's
entertainment. Ultimately, I think they abuse statistical
method mercilessly, but it's allegedly sound. I really dunno.

> >First off, those tests are utter nonsense - anybody who believes they
> >can ask people what they really want is deluded.
>
> Yep. Work with the public and this becomes glaringly clear.
>
> >Second, the self-bias of the people's mental models in the testing itself
>
> Or the bias in the test structure. This is the educational gap
> I was referring to. Survey questions routinely annoy me - you ask a
> slanted question, you get a slanted answer, which is then presented as
> a fact - or worst as a "factoid" whatever that is. It's a
> brainwashing, but not even a malicious one, just a slack and careless
> job that results in brainwashing.

No, it's some schmuck that has a boss and has to "produce" in a
weird heterogenous idea-space. So they have strawmen, and
red herrings and all manner of garbage.

> "Ah, who cares anyway. Who is John
> Galt ?"
>

I think it's more like "Who Is Homer Simpson?".
Dum is gud, ultimately. Ever see the Simpsons with Frank Grimes?
That's a poser, right there.

> >Third, the whole thing is so obsessed with showing some sort of social
> >positivism that nothing of that really makes any sense much
> >at all anymore.
>
> I think this goes either way. There's plenty of negativism out
> there, depending on who's grinding the axe.
>

No, positivism is the idea that "maybe of we all think real hard,
we can stop this rain". It' not *bad* per se, it's just bizarre,
dissonant. Kinda like an Oprah thing.

> >Here's the way I look at it. Those people spend a lot of money
> >gathring and collating focus group/poll data, and that's what
> >ends up on the screen.
>
> Understood. It's the idea that you'd want to do things that
> way that I question (sure, I grok the $$$ angle). But I can be
> delusionally altrustic on such matters. Ask me about long term
> industrialization of the planet sometime when I'm drunk.
>
> >So none of it is *really* garbage, anyway.
>
> OK I was unclear. I meant that if you feed people dumb stuff,
> you don't make them smarter.
>

I'm just exercising my right as an American to spin it positive.

> <wrenching thread on topic>
>
> A similar "it tested well" model has had an unfortunate
> influence on modern music. All bad, no. The best way to elevate
> ourselves, our art and our goals, well - I don't think so.
>

Nope. Not at all. You gotta dig for it. They can't figure out how you'll
pay for the service of having it dug for you, if it can be done at all.

> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


--
Les Cargill

[Richard]

lcargill@worldnet.att.net wrote...

> Ever read some of the stuff from op-ed around 1900? They had better
> formal language skills, but the rhetoric was *just* as heated,
> if not moreso, than it is now. You had actual libel, now and
> again. Before that, some of the stuff said, say, about Lincoln
> was *very* emotionally charged.
>
> I think they had better formal language because there was no
> audio or visual media, so it's like the print muscles were more
> important. That, and everybody beleived that "higher speech" was
> a common good.

This is true. There also seemed to be a lot clearer reasoning, as
well. Less out-and-out faulty logic and that kind of thing.

I thought about this a lot for a while, wondering why this would be.
The only answer I could come up with was perhaps that a smaller
percentage of the population was literate, and those that were
literate were generally better educated.

Now that "the masses" are literate, we get to see just how close to
monkeys we actually, on average, are.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

['nuther Bob]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:37:03 GMT, Les Cargill
<lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Darwin doesn't apply here. Darwin is much coarser-grained than this -
>we're talking the jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens -


My feelings too... Humans will be gone in 10K years or so, we're
flucking up the planet and overpopulating it too fast. That will wipe
us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
years. We ain't gonna make it that long.

Bob

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
[] lcargill@worldnet.att.net wrote...
[]
[] > Ever read some of the stuff from op-ed around 1900? They had better
[] > formal language skills, but the rhetoric was *just* as heated,
[] > if not moreso, than it is now. You had actual libel, now and
[] > again. Before that, some of the stuff said, say, about Lincoln
[] > was *very* emotionally charged.
[] >
[] > I think they had better formal language because there was no
[] > audio or visual media, so it's like the print muscles were more
[] > important. That, and everybody beleived that "higher speech" was
[] > a common good.
[]
[] This is true. There also seemed to be a lot clearer reasoning, as
[] well. Less out-and-out faulty logic and that kind of thing.

I'm not sure if it's fair to judge the entire civilization of that
century (or any before that, especially) simply by the works of their
better wielders of pen and ink, or even of those that were simply
literate enough to post an opt ed.

Amongst the masses, we had huge amounts of general ignorance, even
among the educated, and we had a lot'a superstitions.

Liberians are making potions that they believe will ward off flying
bullets. We may consider it a lack of clear reasoning, but we burned
witches at the stake. And let's not forget the Inquisition.

[] I thought about this a lot for a while, wondering why this would be.
[] The only answer I could come up with was perhaps that a smaller
[] percentage of the population was literate, and those that were
[] literate were generally better educated.
[]
[] Now that "the masses" are literate, we get to see just how close to
[] monkeys we actually, on average, are.

So, now you say that literacy makes the masses dumb, is that what you
are now claiming Richard (if that is your real name)?

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As 'nuther Bob <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> so eloquently put:
[] On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:37:03 GMT, Les Cargill
[] <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[]
[] >Darwin doesn't apply here. Darwin is much coarser-grained than this -
[] >we're talking the jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens -
[]
[]
[] My feelings too... Humans will be gone in 10K years or so, we're
[] flucking up the planet and overpopulating it too fast. That will wipe
[] us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
[] on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
[] their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
[] years. We ain't gonna make it that long.

But dinos can't build space ships. So this is what will happen: we'll
**** up the planet, but we'll be in space by then. We'll **** up out
there too, and will suffer greatly for it, but we will finally wise up
and join an relatively peacefully but politically embroiled
intergalactic empire. But this empire will be taken over by an evil
emperor and... wait, I got'a write this down. How do you spell
midi-chlorians?!

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Richard]

XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
> As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
> [] lcargill@worldnet.att.net wrote...
> []
> [] > Ever read some of the stuff from op-ed around 1900? They had better
> [] > formal language skills, but the rhetoric was *just* as heated,
> [] > if not moreso, than it is now. You had actual libel, now and
> [] > again. Before that, some of the stuff said, say, about Lincoln
> [] > was *very* emotionally charged.
> [] >
> [] > I think they had better formal language because there was no
> [] > audio or visual media, so it's like the print muscles were more
> [] > important. That, and everybody beleived that "higher speech" was
> [] > a common good.
> []
> [] This is true. There also seemed to be a lot clearer reasoning, as
> [] well. Less out-and-out faulty logic and that kind of thing.
>
> I'm not sure if it's fair to judge the entire civilization of that
> century (or any before that, especially) simply by the works of their
> better wielders of pen and ink, or even of those that were simply
> literate enough to post an opt ed.

It wouldn't be fair. That's why I didn't do it. :)

> Amongst the masses, we had huge amounts of general ignorance, even
> among the educated, and we had a lot'a superstitions.

I believe that's pretty common knowledge. Bloodletting to release
'humours' and all that. The test of logic, however, isn't whether or
not starting assertions are valid, but the chain of reasoning that
follows from them. So those old fellas can be way wrong about
things, but be thinking clearly about them. It's just one of those
goofy things about logic, as I know you know inDeED. Like when a
lawyer argues a guilty man to a non-guilty verdict.

> Liberians are making potions that they believe will ward off flying
> bullets. We may consider it a lack of clear reasoning, but we burned
> witches at the stake. And let's not forget the Inquisition.

You're missing the point here. It doesn't have anything to do with
whether what they believed then is ignorance in today's light. It's
the form that argument largely took then versus the form is largely
takes now.

What I think is pretty easy to see in turn-of-the-century periodical
writing is the nearly complete lack of use of logical fallacies such
as the excluded middle, or ad hominem. Given the pains the writers
seem to have taken to reason clearly, it's as if the writer expected
any such bogosity to be recognized and dismissed immediately by the
reader.

A good example of this outside of the periodicals of the day is the
1860 debate on evolution between Thomas Huxley and Archbishop
Wilberforce. Wilberforce tried to erect a humorous strawman, and
Huxley humiliated Wilberforce in front of the crowd for his use of
bad logic on such a serious subject.

Watch a debate today on nearly any topic on any of the cable news
shows, and you'll see that logic has largely gone out the window in
the interest of emotional appeals. Or you'll see it used by sramt
people like Cotler to argue that Democrats are traitors to America.

> [] I thought about this a lot for a while, wondering why this would be.
> [] The only answer I could come up with was perhaps that a smaller
> [] percentage of the population was literate, and those that were
> [] literate were generally better educated.
> []
> [] Now that "the masses" are literate, we get to see just how close to
> [] monkeys we actually, on average, are.
>
> So, now you say that literacy makes the masses dumb, is that what you
> are now claiming Richard (if that is your real name)?

Rather that literacy shows us how domb we actually are. Which is
kinda what you said, if you read it a certain way.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

[ryanm]

"Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
news:0oh8kvg0qf6hctb5ntqi8lstq125ivhktb@4ax.com...
>
> But dinos can't build space ships. So this is what will happen: we'll
> **** up the planet, but we'll be in space by then. We'll **** up out
> there too, and will suffer greatly for it, but we will finally wise up
> and join an relatively peacefully but politically embroiled
> intergalactic empire. But this empire will be taken over by an evil
> emperor and... wait, I got'a write this down. How do you spell
> midi-chlorians?!
>
Actually, add past souls clinging to yours and you almost have
scientology.

ryanm

[Les Cargill]

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:37:03 GMT, Les Cargill
> <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Darwin doesn't apply here. Darwin is much coarser-grained than this -
> >we're talking the jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens -
>
> My feelings too... Humans will be gone in 10K years or so, we're
> flucking up the planet and overpopulating it too fast.

It's controversial whether it's true or not, but population growth
has apparently slowed dramatically in places.

> That will wipe
> us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
> on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
> their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
> years. We ain't gonna make it that long.


You never know. I think it's impossible *to* know for sure.

>
> Bob


--
Les Cargill

[Richard]

ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com wrote...
> "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
> >
> > My feelings too... Humans will be gone in 10K years or so, we're
> > flucking up the planet and overpopulating it too fast. That will wipe
> > us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
> > on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
> > their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
> > years. We ain't gonna make it that long.
> >
> What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
> damaging the planet" crap. We're not damaging the planet, we're simply
> making it uninhabitable for humans.

How would you reconcile your statement that we only hurt humans with
evidence that human activity has trashed the coral reefs and the
species that live on them? Whale populations? Buffalo?

Unless your statement was not intended to be particularly accurate,
that is.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

[Don't forget to bring a TOWEL!]

"ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote

> What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
> damaging the planet" crap. We're not damaging the planet, we're simply
> making it uninhabitable for humans. The planet will outlive us all,
probably
> by at least a few million years, and anything we do short of knocking
> ourselves out of orbit with nuclear bombs or cracking the damn thing in
half
> will have almost no effect on the planet itself. Trust me, mother earth
> doesn't give two ****s about how much we use fossil fuels, because she'll
> just make more of them *out of us*!

Heh! That's so true -- and pretty damn funny, to
boot. However, I think for most people, when
they say "damaging the planet," they actually
*intend* the latter statement you made in that
sentence: Humans Need Not Apply.

Funny, that. I was looking around on the local PBS
station a night or two ago, and there was some
guy who, by studying a database of fossil records
of when groups of species had become extinct,
had figured out that almost like clockwork, every
23 million years, some big event had seemingly
caused a mass extinction.

The theory went on to say that if our solar
system had another star in it, albeit one on a
huge, loping orbit, that might explain it. As the
star came closer to Sol, it would pick up some
big, rocky pals in the Oort cloud, and bring
enough of 'em in towards Earth to cause a big
party. Sperm and egg on the God scale.

Now, I could tell from the 'puters dude was usin'
that this theory has grown out of the short pants,
but I don't ever remember hearing this "Nemesis"
theory before. And to think... I may have only had
18 million years left to figure this out on my own! :)

--
Toucan, four can
Hey man jam
the Tou-Wang Clan
Reply to me @ toucan@mailblocks.com

[ryanm]

"'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
news:fk68kv8m2935at1897o0chlg7a6kr71dlp@4ax.com...
>
> My feelings too... Humans will be gone in 10K years or so, we're
> flucking up the planet and overpopulating it too fast. That will wipe
> us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
> on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
> their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
> years. We ain't gonna make it that long.
>
What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
damaging the planet" crap. We're not damaging the planet, we're simply
making it uninhabitable for humans. The planet will outlive us all, probably
by at least a few million years, and anything we do short of knocking
ourselves out of orbit with nuclear bombs or cracking the damn thing in half
will have almost no effect on the planet itself. Trust me, mother earth
doesn't give two ****s about how much we use fossil fuels, because she'll
just make more of them *out of us*! We'll be around about as long as your
average backyard anthill from the earth's perspective, and have about as
much effect as ants in the long run. Unless, of course, we suddenly wise up
and actually stick around for a while, which, given our present course, is
unlikely.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19af2c34f252f69e9897ea@news.verizon.net.. .
>
> How would you reconcile your statement that we only hurt humans with
> evidence that human activity has trashed the coral reefs and the
> species that live on them? Whale populations? Buffalo?
>
What difference does that make to the earth? Crush all the reefs to
dust, she'll make more. The earth does not care. The things living on the
earth may care, but those are simply parasites from the earth's perspective
anyway. Some more bothersome than others. My point was that we are not
damaging the *earth*, although we may be making it uninhabitable for
ourselves. I know I said humans, but it kind of infers anything with similar
habitat requirements to humans along with them. But none of those things are
the earth. The earth could live several hundred thousand miles closer to the
sun, even if nothing living on the earth could live there. Makes no
difference to the planet, though, we're just pests, hitching a ride.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Don't forget to bring a TOWEL!" <touscan4kin@com-diddley-castaway.net>
wrote in message news:B66cnflAbPEM-tiiXTWJig@comcast.com...
>
> Heh! That's so true -- and pretty damn funny, to
> boot. However, I think for most people, when
> they say "damaging the planet," they actually
> *intend* the latter statement you made in that
> sentence: Humans Need Not Apply.
>
Of course, but it evokes a better emotional response to say "We're
*killing* the earth!"

> The theory went on to say that if our solar
> system had another star in it, albeit one on a
> huge, loping orbit, that might explain it. As the
> star came closer to Sol, it would pick up some
> big, rocky pals in the Oort cloud, and bring
> enough of 'em in towards Earth to cause a big
> party. Sperm and egg on the God scale.
>
Nah, we would be able to show a predictable change in the orbits of all
the planets in the system over time with our position projecting software if
there were another star. However, there *could* be a neighboring system that
swings a couple decent sized chunks-o-rock at us every couple million years.
They could be coming for us right now and we wouldn't know it. Last I heard,
NASA (and other space agencies around the world) have enough budget and
equipment to watch about 2%-3% of the sky for incoming projectiles with
enough warning to actually do more than say "What's that?" before it hits. I
mean, we could watch the whole sky a couple hundred miles out, but given
that meteorites generally traven at somewhere upwards of 15,000 miles per
hour (often at better than 25k-30k mph), we would only get a few minutes
warning. Whether we could actually do something about it if we found
something headed for us is debatable.

> Now, I could tell from the 'puters dude was usin'
> that this theory has grown out of the short pants,
> but I don't ever remember hearing this "Nemesis"
> theory before. And to think... I may have only had
> 18 million years left to figure this out on my own! :)
>
I've heard several varieties of this kind of theory, but none of them
with substantial evidence, probably due to the lack of useful data from a
couple thousand years ago and prior. But we have a pretty good idea about
our system and several neighboring systems because of position projecting
software. We can look at a very small sample which can be verified (such as,
for example, the positions of our planets and neighboring stars for the past
50 years) and use it to (relatively accurately) figure out what has happened
to put them in their current positions and where they will be in the future.
So if we've observed a bit of "wobble" in a star's position, we can assume
that something with a lot of gravity is nearby, causing it to wobble. Ours
doesn't seem to do this, so we can (relatively) safely assume that there's
no companion star.

ryanm

[Richard]

ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com wrote...
> "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > How would you reconcile your statement that we only hurt humans with
> > evidence that human activity has trashed the coral reefs and the
> > species that live on them? Whale populations? Buffalo?
> >
> What difference does that make to the earth? Crush all the reefs to
> dust, she'll make more.

One of us evidently failed biology here, and it wasn't me.

> The earth does not care. The things living on the
> earth may care, but those are simply parasites from the earth's perspective
> anyway.

Know this for a fact, do you?

I think you've been watching a little too much Star Trek, myself.
Hopefully you don't walk around your house in a Mr. Spock outfit
saying things like, "Carbon-based life is an infestation of V-GER,"
in some weird robot-computer voice. It'll scare your kids.

> Some more bothersome than others. My point was that we are not
> damaging the *earth*, although we may be making it uninhabitable for
> ourselves. I know I said humans, but it kind of infers anything with similar
> habitat requirements to humans along with them.

All I asked for was the degree of precision in your statement. The
answer is, "Not very much." This isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't
clear until your reply.

> But none of those things are
> the earth. The earth could live several hundred thousand miles closer to the
> sun, even if nothing living on the earth could live there. Makes no
> difference to the planet, though, we're just pests, hitching a ride.

There's exactly as much evidence that the earth considers life as
hitchhiking "pests" as there is evidence that the earth that nurtures
and cherishes each species: None.

In that latter point of view, however--nicely encapsulated in several
what are now generally considered pagan religions and cultures--life
of the earth, and ecosystems of the earth, are a part of the earth.
Therefore, hurting life and or those ecosystems is hurting the earth.

I'm not taking a position one way or the other, so don't bother to go
Polfus on me. I've got more to do than get drawn into one of your
demonstrations of how little else you've got going on in your life
this week.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

[Rick N. Backer]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:45:20 -0500, "Don't forget to bring a TOWEL!"
<touscan4kin@com-diddley-castaway.net> spewed forth:

>"ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote
>
>> What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
>> damaging the planet" crap. We're not damaging the planet, we're simply
>> making it uninhabitable for humans. The planet will outlive us all,
>probably
>> by at least a few million years, and anything we do short of knocking
>> ourselves out of orbit with nuclear bombs or cracking the damn thing in
>half
>> will have almost no effect on the planet itself. Trust me, mother earth
>> doesn't give two ****s about how much we use fossil fuels, because she'll
>> just make more of them *out of us*!
>
>Heh! That's so true -- and pretty damn funny, to
>boot. However, I think for most people, when
>they say "damaging the planet," they actually
>*intend* the latter statement you made in that
>sentence: Humans Need Not Apply.
>
>Funny, that. I was looking around on the local PBS
>station a night or two ago, and there was some
>guy who, by studying a database of fossil records
>of when groups of species had become extinct,
>had figured out that almost like clockwork, every
>23 million years, some big event had seemingly
>caused a mass extinction.
>
>The theory went on to say that if our solar
>system had another star in it, albeit one on a
>huge, loping orbit, that might explain it. As the
>star came closer to Sol, it would pick up some
>big, rocky pals in the Oort cloud, and bring
>enough of 'em in towards Earth to cause a big
>party. Sperm and egg on the God scale.
>
>Now, I could tell from the 'puters dude was usin'
>that this theory has grown out of the short pants,
>but I don't ever remember hearing this "Nemesis"
>theory before. And to think... I may have only had
>18 million years left to figure this out on my own! :)

I only want one more kick at the fossil fuels and then I'll give up
and go solar. Somebody, anybody, snuff that asshole purple dinosaur,
bury him and I'll drill for him and stuff him in my gas tank.

"I love you, you love me, ..." get real.

LOL

Ken Wilson

Amer. Dlx. Tele, Gary Moore LP,
Jeff Beck Strat, Morgan OM Acoustic,
Rick 360/12, Standard Strat (MIM),
Mesa 100 Nomad, Mesa F-30

"Just because people don't understand
you doesn't mean you are an artist"

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
[... the crux of the biscuit, indeed...]
[] Watch a debate today on nearly any topic on any of the cable news
[] shows, and you'll see that logic has largely gone out the window in
[] the interest of emotional appeals. Or you'll see it used by sramt
[] people like Cotler to argue that Democrats are traitors to America.

I'm with ya there. I'm just not sure that this is a new thing.

Chris

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Richard]

XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX wrote...
> As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
> [... the crux of the biscuit, indeed...]
> [] Watch a debate today on nearly any topic on any of the cable news
> [] shows, and you'll see that logic has largely gone out the window in
> [] the interest of emotional appeals. Or you'll see it used by sramt
> [] people like Cotler to argue that Democrats are traitors to America.
>
> I'm with ya there. I'm just not sure that this is a new thing.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. I've only formed some vague impressions
from reading a some turn-of-the-century periodical and newspaper
articles.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

As "ryanm" <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> so eloquently put:
[] What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
[] damaging the planet" crap. We're not damaging the planet, we're simply
[] making it uninhabitable for humans.

Damn straight. We can wipe out sentient life, produce a layer of
atmosphere that obliterates the balance of plant and animal life as we
now know it, but this is not damaging the planet.

Oh sure, something would survive cataclysmic ecological stress, so
that validates our actions as non-damaging somehow.

This rock will survive, no matter what, so our actions should never be
perceived as damaging to the ecostructure.

Right.

----
"...there would have been no Holdsworth or
Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
-- Mark Garvin
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

[Nobody]

ryanm <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote in article <vkamsceae0vi66@corp.supernews.com>...

> What cracks me up are the people who actually believe the "we're
> damaging the planet" crap.

What cracks me up are the people who actually believe we aren't.

--
Jason
http://www.geocities.com/nobody_upstairs

[Richard]

ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com wrote...
> "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Your mistake is in giving human attributes, such as consideration, to
> the earth. We're irrelevant to the planet, just as before we existed.

That's not my mistake. If you review your own comments you can see
the anthropomorphizing starts there: "mother earth doesn't give two
****s", "[living things] are simply parasites from the earth's
perspective", "earth could live several hundred thousand miles closer
to the sun", and even the "we're irrelevant to the planet" above.
Now, maybe that's just you using language very badly, but all of
those expressions carry the connotation of the earth as a living,
conscious entity with a point of view.

I carried it over deliberately, so as to talk about this in the terms
you expressed it in.

See ya.

--
Afghanistan : Russia -> Iraq : USA

[ryanm]

"Not A Speck Of Cereal" <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote in message
news:rh9bkv4emdchsls5on9gd73hp6rd34s7t2@4ax.com...
>
> Damn straight. We can wipe out sentient life, produce a layer of
> atmosphere that obliterates the balance of plant and animal life as we
> now know it, but this is not damaging the planet.
>
> Oh sure, something would survive cataclysmic ecological stress, so
> that validates our actions as non-damaging somehow.
>
> This rock will survive, no matter what, so our actions should never be
> perceived as damaging to the ecostructure.
>
I said nothing about validating any actions, I said we're not "killing
the earth". The earth doesn't give two ****s about us or what we do, and
like I said, short of knocking the thing out of orbit or literally cracking
it wide open (like with a massive nuclear blast or something), there is very
little we *could* do to actually damage the earth. Kill everything on it,
and the earth will go on. And probably make more life after everything has
chilled out for a while.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19af4cccb3165eec9897eb@news.verizon.net.. .
>
> Know this for a fact, do you?
>
Yep. I asked. Got the same response as when I asked god the same
question.

> I think you've been watching a little too much Star Trek, myself.
>
Never watch it, what did I say that was star trek-like?

> All I asked for was the degree of precision in your statement. The
> answer is, "Not very much." This isn't a bad thing, it just wasn't
> clear until your reply.
>
I disagree. The earth has been plugging along for millions of years,
during the vast majority of which there was no sign of any kind of life on
it. Same when we're gone. In the long run, we won't even leave a mark.

> There's exactly as much evidence that the earth considers life as
> hitchhiking "pests" as there is evidence that the earth that nurtures
> and cherishes each species: None.
>
Your mistake is in giving human attributes, such as consideration, to
the earth. We're irrelevant to the planet, just as before we existed.

ryanm

[Stephan Neuhaus]

ryanm wrote:
> I disagree. The earth has been plugging along for millions of years,
> during the vast majority of which there was no sign of any kind of life on
> it.

That's not in accordance with currently accepted theories. First, Earth
is about 4.6 *billion* years old. Second, life appeared relatively
quickly. The oldest fossils containing cells are 3.5 billion years old.
Given that the oldest rocks are about 3.9 billion years old, life on
Earth is about as old as it can be. This is because before there were
rocks, Earth was too hot to sustain life as we know it.

(Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/gould.html)

Therefore, the earth has been plugging along for 4.6 billion years,
during the vast majority of which (77% and rising) there were many signs
of cellular life on it.

Fun,

Stephan
--
Stephan Neuhaus
University of the Saarland, Department of Computer Science
Experimental Software Security at the Chair of Software Engineering
Web: http://www.st.cs.uni-sb.de/~neuhaus

[John S. Shinal]

Les Cargill wrote:

Les, Richard, Speck, et. al. - there has been some really
interesting critical and adventurous thinking in this thread - it's
nice to see.

>It's controversial whether it's true or not, but population growth
>has apparently slowed dramatically in places.

The treatise that impressed me (log ago, forgotten source) was
that humans breed based on infant and child mortality. Thus when
people can be relatively safe and raise children to adulthood, they
tend to breed less. Not an absolute, but there is some correlation.
IIRC, it didn't really factor in societal things like men defying any
sort of birth control and subjugating their women - a pretty
significant omission.

>> That will wipe
>> us out, or a big asteroid, whichever comes first. We're just a blimp
>> on the meter compared to the dinosaurs. Let's not forget that for all
>> their lack of "intelligence", they lasted a couple hundred million
>> years. We ain't gonna make it that long.
>
>You never know. I think it's impossible *to* know for sure.

Certainly. If you go disrupting temporal causality, I'm going
to be *very* annoyed. Right before I vanish in a puff of logic.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John S. Shinal]

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:

>As Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
> [... the crux of the biscuit, indeed...]
>[] Watch a debate today on nearly any topic on any of the cable news
>[] shows, and you'll see that logic has largely gone out the window in
>[] the interest of emotional appeals. Or you'll see it used by sramt
>[] people like Cotler to argue that Democrats are traitors to America.
>
>I'm with ya there. I'm just not sure that this is a new thing.

Well distilled by you both, this is one of the things I was
rambling about. I think it's not exactly new, but is broader based,
and is having more of an effect on each generation as it becomes
accepted due to lack of critical insights by the consumers.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John S. Shinal]

"Don't forget to bring a TOWEL!" wrote:

>The theory went on to say that if our solar
>system had another star in it, albeit one on a
>huge, loping orbit, that might explain it. As the
>star came closer to Sol, it would pick up some
>big, rocky pals in the Oort cloud, and bring
>enough of 'em in towards Earth to cause a big
>party. Sperm and egg on the God scale.
>
>Now, I could tell from the 'puters dude was usin'
>that this theory has grown out of the short pants,
>but I don't ever remember hearing this "Nemesis"
>theory before. And to think... I may have only had
>18 million years left to figure this out on my own! :)

No, the nemesis theory has been around for a while. He may be
the first to exhaustively work out orbital mechanics if he's done so.
There are orbital perturbations of the outer planets that may be
indicative, but it's pretty thin ice. The same effect could result
from a near pass through the Oort cloud by a massy object that had a
big effect that has never quite settled out. I can't speak to how long
that settling would require - that's serious orbital mechanics work.

If there is a companion, it's a mighty dark one - which is
problematic itself. A "brown" dwarf is almost not big enough to
disturb things enough, and a collapsed core of some sort doesn't fit
well with so many F, G and K series stars in the neighborhood. A
neutron star off to one side of the Solar neighborhood would be
plausible, right next door makes a lot less sense. The last candidate
is a quantum black hole, which ought to exist, but haven't been proven
yet - quite unlike the Cygnus X-1 object.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

['nuther Bob]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 04:23:49 GMT, Rick N. Backer
<ken.wilson@NsOhSaPw.cAaM> wrote:

>I only want one more kick at the fossil fuels and then I'll give up
>and go solar. Somebody, anybody, snuff that asshole purple dinosaur,
>bury him and I'll drill for him and stuff him in my gas tank.
>

Evidently you haven't been paying attention. He lives *in your
imagination*. Check the theme song next time. All you have to do
is imagine he's gone.

Oh, and, wrong group ---> alt.barney.dinosaur.die.*.*

Bob

[JMK]

jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com (John S. Shinal) wrote in message news:<3f43bb38.788116936@text-east.newsfeeds.com>...
>
> >Look at 60 minutes, old ones. You had Mike Wallace picking
> >fights with people, making entertainment out of it. This
> >is not new.
>
> "But sir, isn't it true that..."
>
> Emotion is a compelling hook, but that probably started with
> the journalism of the Tammany Hall era in the US, and Edwardian times
> in the English press. Like much else, it's evolved into a turbocharged
> version today.

I once had a huge debate about something national and political
with a journalism major. After positing my arguement, he said that
our viewpoints are inherently irreconcilable. He said, "You
obviously base yours on facts. However, mine is much more based on
emotion." He then went on to make a connection between that and the
power of his position compared to mine.

I think he's a newscaster in Buffalo now. Scary.

JMK

[JMK]

Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F43CFF6.93D01472@worldnet.att.net>...
>
> Ever read some of the stuff from op-ed around 1900? They had better
> formal language skills, but the rhetoric was *just* as heated,
> if not moreso, than it is now. You had actual libel, now and
> again. Before that, some of the stuff said, say, about Lincoln
> was *very* emotionally charged.
>
> I think they had better formal language because there was no
> audio or visual media, so it's like the print muscles were more
> important. That, and everybody beleived that "higher speech" was
> a common good.

Personal invective was a mainstay of the press at the beginning of
this country. Whole columns were written deriding one person's
appearance, lineage, and his form while kneeling for prayer
during services. It was beyond rhetoric - it was the Monty
Python skit about coming in for an argument and getting abuse,
writ large with funny "s"s.

JMK

[Grant]

Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
> As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:

> [] Ever since I was an observer of both the trial and the press coverage of
> [] an acquaintance who shot his wife (by his own admission but claiming
> [] self-defense), I have lost all faith in (1) the fairness of the court
> [] system, and (2) the correctness and fairness of press coverage of
> [] criminal trials.
>
> I would be interested to hear more of your viewpoints regarding point
> 1. I've not had your experience, but I've been on several jury
> selection events, and I've been wondering about the effectiveness of
> our jury selection process.

I'm not terribly enamored with our current policy of "only people who
don't read the paper or watch TV can be good jurors." However, the
problem I personally observed had less to do with the jury per se than
with the pre-filtering of the evidence the jury was even allowed to see.

Specifically, the judge made the decision before the trial began that
testimony pertaining to the wife's (victim's) character and state of
mind on the day of her death would not be allowed. His superficial
reasoning was that this would prevent the defense from gratuitously
dragging the victim's reputation through the mud.

The effect, however, was to completely preempt any kind of a credible
self-defense argument. The jury (and the press) swallowed the
prosecution story that the wife was a typical innocent victim of an
abusive husband, and a warm, loving person to boot (she was in fact a
very high strung, angry and bitter person; also a former police officer
-- it was her own gun that was used in the shooting). According to
the prosecutor, the husband cold-bloodedly shot her while she slept
(unfortunately, physical evidence was extremely ambiguous on what
happened when and who did what --- among other things, police mishandled
the gun used and pretty much wiped out any usable fingerprint evidence).

The reality that we personally knew from our interactions with this
family was vastly different than that portrayed to the jury or the
press. In fact, when we first heard that the police had custody of
their kids and were investigating a crime, our immediate reaction was
that the *wife* had gone off the deep end and done something, like kill
herself, or attack someone else, or something in that vein. And that,
in fact, is what the husband argued -- that she had threatened him with
*her* gun, and they had then struggled for it, after which he shot her.

Only the jury didn't believe him, because they were never allowed to
hear the supporting testimony, which included the details of an
emotional phone call that my wife received from the woman literally
hours before her death.

Also, the judge was seemingly biased in how he ruled on objections from
the defense and prosecution. The prosecution basically got away with
murder, pardon the pun. And the defense, when it made any objection at
all (it should have made more than it did), was u