"I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position."
Then why doesn't someone tell RMS that so he'll stop doing it?
"As for sourcing, I won't. Instead of hunting some obscure study I'll just tell you that A) It's kinda' obvious"
Except it's not, see. As a former graduate assistant at our substance abuse lab, I can tell you it's nowhere near 90%.
I think you'd be surprised, but a large amount of research is done on prisoners.
"B) In most general research studies I read (not targeting a specific demographic or a special group) the subjects were students, and usualy rewarded by credit."
The same is done with prisoners.
Since this is an area in which your making assumptions while I have some experience, at the risk of "arguing from authority" I'll say your number is way way way too high. Take that for what it's worth.
"90% of psychological research is done with college students."
Source this please, because I know it's false and I'd like to watch you attempt it. ( you won't, you'll pretend you didn't see my post and avoid sourcing anything)
"That was a very condescending and unnecessary end to your otherwise insightful post."
I'm glad you caught that, I was concerned it might be too subtle.
However, if an AC thinks it was condescending (it wasn't unnecessary, no matter what you say, as OP was trying to speak as though he had a monopoly on the correct viewpoint) then I hit the level of condescension I was aiming for.
And I didn't read anything else you posted, as I was certain it was just as useless as your opening statement.
"Just because you're close enough to a person that you could slap them, doesn't mean the person is any less of a mirage than they are online."
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it means. The more sensory inputs you have, the more you can come to intelligent conclusions about how those inputs correspond to each other, and whether they make sense.
With only one way of interacting online, you have no way to judge body language, voice tone, energy levels, facial expressions, or any of the other dozens of things that humans use to convey information about feelings and intentions. Things that can't be masked like you suggest, or at least not easily, and not in a way that avoids creating suspicion.
You are exactly wrong.
Re:The Saddam/911 link is a bad example
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
"they are not exactly equivalent."
No, they're NOT EQUIVALENT. The exactly is an unnecessary modifier you used to avoid looking wrong. They are either equivalent or not. In this case, they're not.
"So I feel no obligation to justify myself..."
In other words, you can't and you found an easy out, or you know why and are ashamed to admit it.
You're on a public web board, if you don't want to have an open discussion, WTF are you doing here?
I didn't see anything in your post that shows Bush claimed Saddam was responsible. Why are you saying he's full of shit when you've given no evidence at all?
Slashdot Mirror
"I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position."
Then why doesn't someone tell RMS that so he'll stop doing it?
"Like, oh I dunno, SELF PROMOTION, or some trifle like that."
FYP
We don't disavow it as much as fail to recognize it.
That (in my case at least) stems from RMS constantly seeking to force us to recognize him.
"It's GNU/Linux, not Linux" smacks of a particularly distasteful kind of desperation.
"As for sourcing, I won't. Instead of hunting some obscure study I'll just tell you that A) It's kinda' obvious"
Except it's not, see. As a former graduate assistant at our substance abuse lab, I can tell you it's nowhere near 90%.
I think you'd be surprised, but a large amount of research is done on prisoners.
"B) In most general research studies I read (not targeting a specific demographic or a special group) the subjects were students, and usualy rewarded by credit."
The same is done with prisoners.
Since this is an area in which your making assumptions while I have some experience, at the risk of "arguing from authority" I'll say your number is way way way too high. Take that for what it's worth.
"90% of psychological research is done with college students."
Source this please, because I know it's false and I'd like to watch you attempt it. ( you won't, you'll pretend you didn't see my post and avoid sourcing anything)
+5 insightful for a made up statistic...
Why do you think anything you just said has any bearing on illegal immigration?
Or are you so deluded by your lifetime of "being hated" that you automatically assume those people who decry illegal immigration must be "racist"?
It takes an exceptionally closed mind to presume that a denouncement of illegal immigration has anything at all to do with racism or jingoism.
Your bigotry and racism is showing, and you can't even see it.
"Hating the French and Mexicans is high fashion among the Dixie Republicans and Midwesterners"
Why do I find it interesting that your post about bigotry is begun with your own bigotry, which you seem to not even notice.
"That was a very condescending and unnecessary end to your otherwise insightful post."
I'm glad you caught that, I was concerned it might be too subtle.
However, if an AC thinks it was condescending (it wasn't unnecessary, no matter what you say, as OP was trying to speak as though he had a monopoly on the correct viewpoint) then I hit the level of condescension I was aiming for.
And I didn't read anything else you posted, as I was certain it was just as useless as your opening statement.
"Just because you're close enough to a person that you could slap them, doesn't mean the person is any less of a mirage than they are online."
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it means. The more sensory inputs you have, the more you can come to intelligent conclusions about how those inputs correspond to each other, and whether they make sense.
With only one way of interacting online, you have no way to judge body language, voice tone, energy levels, facial expressions, or any of the other dozens of things that humans use to convey information about feelings and intentions. Things that can't be masked like you suggest, or at least not easily, and not in a way that avoids creating suspicion.
You are exactly wrong.
"they are not exactly equivalent."
No, they're NOT EQUIVALENT. The exactly is an unnecessary modifier you used to avoid looking wrong. They are either equivalent or not. In this case, they're not.
"So I feel no obligation to justify myself..."
In other words, you can't and you found an easy out, or you know why and are ashamed to admit it.
You're on a public web board, if you don't want to have an open discussion, WTF are you doing here?
"I'm complaining that some seem to think that it is the be-all and end-all of human affairs."
Since no one seems to have made that point, could you please explain why you're assuming it with such a dearth of evidence?
Or you could just admit it's a straw man and we could get back to discussing this without inflammatory rhetoric.
"Oh, I'm sorry. Of course it was the Jews who planned 9/11."
In other words, you know I'm right.
gg
Nice, but you didn't answer my question.
The two statements are not equivalent, yet you are trying to portray them as such.
Why, and what does it say about you that you'd try to distort the discussion like that?
Why would you post a link to a poll that doesn't say anything to support you?
Or do you believe that "Saddam planned 9/11" is the same as "Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda"?
I didn't see anything in your post that shows Bush claimed Saddam was responsible. Why are you saying he's full of shit when you've given no evidence at all?