TK was exactly right. OT

In article ,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...inal_61608.pdf

Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jun 25, 6:02*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

* *Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

Our President on the great talent of Filipino-Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGiU2VhHWtY

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...final_61608.pd
f

Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
twelve!" is pretty lame.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Jun 25, 11:51*am, Michael Press wrote:
*"Paul G." wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:50*pm, Robert Chung wrote:
No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?


Anyone can doubt. Doubting is easy. Proving the
doubt is well founded actually requires work.

A friend of mine is working with someone else's grad
student, and the grad student is intelligent, but every
time she tells him what he needs to do, he says "I'm not
convinced that's the right way to do it," and then sits
there waiting for her to convince him. It's all very
Socratic to say that in fact she should be able to convince
him that the way three professors and two postdocs
want him to reduce the data is the right way. But in
practice, she doesn't want to work for a week every time
he needs to be convinced that a well-understood procedure
is correct. So he goes off and does his own thing,
screws up, and weeks later comes back and maybe does it
the way it should have been done in the first place.
After a few iterations of this, she just wanted to strangle
the kid with his Ethernet cable.

Sometimes gnomic utterances aren't a sign of deep
understanding of underlying complexity, after all.
Maybe Yoda was full of crap.

Ben

On Jun 26, 12:29 am, "
wrote:
On Jun 25, 11:51 am, Michael Press wrote:

"Paul G." wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Robert Chung wrote:
No wonder you're perplexed. Denial will do that.

Right. There is no question that rising CO2 levels result in warming.

There is doubt, else why do you even have to deny it?

Anyone can doubt. Doubting is easy. Proving the
doubt is well founded actually requires work.

A friend of mine is working with someone else's grad
student, and the grad student is intelligent, but every
time she tells him what he needs to do, he says "I'm not
convinced that's the right way to do it," and then sits
there waiting for her to convince him.

Sounds like Bartleby the Scrivener. http://www.bartleby.com/129/

R

In article ],
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...nd_final_61608.
pd
f

Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
twelve!" is pretty lame.

If that was what it actually said it would be pretty weak. But since Scalia put
the number at 30, and the report stated that, "At most 12, not 30, detainees
³returned to the fight.²"

Furthermore, it states, "Of these 12, it is by no means clear that all are
properly characterized as having been so engaged since their release."

In other words, it's questionable even of them.

Significantly: "According to the Department of Defense¹s published and unpublished
data and reports, not a single released Guantánamo detainee has ever attacked any
Americans."

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jun 25, 9:25*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
twelve!" is pretty lame.

Read this to understand what was meant by "returned to the fight."

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsid...ed-to-the.html

BTW, I linked to a snippet from a CBC interview with Sabin Willett on
a slightly different topic today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBpted42m00

On Jun 25, 9:25*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
*Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
*Robert Chung wrote:

On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C wrote:

*Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.

More fringe:
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyrese...legend_final_6....
f

* *Scalia's response to that report:

http://home.comcast.net/~duncanblack/scalia.jpg

You gotta admit, as debunkings of urban legends go, "it was only
twelve!" is pretty lame.

That kind of thinking leads inexorably to the conclusion that we
should never let anyone out of any prison, and of course it helps
distract everyone from the much more significant fact that this fiasco
has ****ed off millions of people around the world. That will have
repercussions for the rest of our lives.
-Paul

wrote:
Sometimes gnomic utterances aren't a sign of deep understanding of
underlying complexity, after all. Maybe Yoda was full of crap.

Crap, the force is.

On 6/25/08 5:28 AM, in article
, "Bill C"
wrote:

On Jun 24, 7:41*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Jun 24, 3:40*pm, Bill C wrote:

That was mine not, Ben's.

While I've slipped in comments to older posts/attrib's before, I
almost always leave the attrib markers in place. *This time I did not
slip in a comment to an older Ben posting, nor did I misplace my
comment according to the attrib markers.

Back to the point: It is a confidence game.

Not sure if I would've supported buying/taking ANWR, but now that I,
through my involuntary contribution, own it, and I'm gonna pretend the
system might work, then I'm happier treating it like a painting on a
wall. Just as much fun to look at and does a lot more good though.
Once in a while, if enough of us scream at them, they actually listen.
They took our money, they bought it, we own it.
Bill C

http://tinyurl.com/5lrtbv

Is Ethanol Killing Poor People?

Dr. Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation says the poor
may pay the price for cleaner air.

Congress passed legislation in 2005 requiring gasoline to include more
ethanol, a biofuel made from corn.

However, Reuters News Agency reports that the United Nations special food
envoy is warning that using more biofuels could ³lead to hundreds of
thousands of deaths from hunger worldwide.²

More biofuel usage increases the demand for corn and sugar, making those
food products more expensive, which hurts the poor. The Mexican government,
for example, has considered imposing price controls on corn because the
price of corn tortillas, a Mexican staple food, has been rising so fast.

Laws have consequences. Biofuels may make the air a little cleaner; they
also may make the poor a lot hungrier.