"He was speaking of voters short attention span. That is voters who ignore the 2002 tax cuts but paid attention to what bush said prior to the election. Now we are back to more cuts."
That doesn't explain how he used the same examples for both sides of his argument.
I notice you conveniently avoid addressing that because he (you) realize that it was ridiculous and makes no sense.
"But my question to the mods is why are you still modded at 0?"
Because in the bastion of groupthink that is slashdot, I dissent. Apparently all the free speech talk goes out the window when people like you are given power over other's speech.
My question to you is, why are you so ashamed of your opinion that you're afraid to put your name to it?
Don't you think it's important to be consistent with your anti-Bush rant?
You post two examples of Bush stating his support for manned programs, then as if you think you've proven something, post ANOTHER article saying the SAME THING yet you use it as a counter example.
Even worse though, is the assertion that the statements were for votes in 2004, and as proof of that(?) you post a 2002 budget. 2002, if I'm correct, was before 2004. What do you think you've demonstrated?
You see, I didn't assume you meant the US, you GAVE ME a reason to assume it was the US.
NOWHERE did you mention the country (look, you'll realize I'm right) so getting huffy about is a little stupid.
Maybe you could be clearer in the future and not assume people know what you're thinking?
1st post you made
"You and the parent poster are probably rich folks who do not have to commute by public transportation many hours a day (one person I know stays 6 ho/day on the commuting bus.) I don't know in your town, but people in the bus down here are not the best conversationists."
Hmm, no country mentioned.
2nd post made
"That is a typical rich-person answer. The woman I mentined earns US$ 300/month; she has a fully-paid-for house in a neighbouring small town. * Her house is at least 10x cheaper than an equivalent house anywhere near the city (meaning, she can't just sell her house and try to move); * her salary is not enough to eat, feed her son and pay for rent in the city; * there are no equivalent employment opportunities in her town; * she does not have enough money to go away from the country. Now, it does not seem that simple, does it?"
Hey look, NO COUNTRY MENTIONED. Hmm, I see a pattern.
"and take your head out of your burgeoise way of thinking that the whole world is the US of A. The minimum wage down here is US$ 150/month (it used to be less than US$ 100/month, but the US dollar took a HUGE hit during this year.)"
No country there either.
It wasn't until your last post here
"I normally go ballistic when people call BS on me (I'm not a BS kind of guy...) But this [google.com] should settle the issue. US$ 1 = R$ (BRL) 2.20, for reference."
that you made reference to a particular country.
So you'll understand why I assumed it was the US, since the only country you mentioned was the US in reference to the currency.
I'm tempted to make a snide comment here, but I believe it was an honest mistake so I won't. In the future though, I suggest you establish exactly where you're located first, because my impression was that most of the other respondents assumed it was the US as well.
"You guys that are saying that, you don't have the side of research on you."
There is NO consensus on this subject. Please stop trying to make it appear as if there is. You made many statements in your post which are unproven opinions. I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the subject, people just respond too differently to stimulus.
Punishment is effective for changing behaviors (notice I said "punishment" not "beating") and frankly, any attempt to argue otherwise should be immediately dismissed. But like any tool, it has a place, and using it incorrectly will lead to problems.
Lastly, I noticed that throughout your post you used inflammatory rhetoric to indicate corporal punsihment, such as "violence" and "beating". I doubt you'll find anyone credible who advocates beating a child, so lay off the hyperbole. It's a clear indicator of someone whose point is weak, and your isn't so weak that you need to resort to word games.
"You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida?"
See you're lying again. You'll find no such links, as the only mentions of where I lived are Switzerland and Florida. I never lived in NY or England and never claimed to.
Yet another example of you making stuff up, which apparently is the criteria for your posts. Make up a position, then stick to it despite being shown to be a liar.
"Actually, from what I recall, it was a different person you "caught lying." (Though I read the whole thread, and it appears your definition of "lying" seems to be much less rigorous than mine.)"
My criteria is "something that is demonstrably false" such as the idiot Windbourne's claims about PCR.
"You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida?"
See you're lying again. You'll find no such links, as the only mentions of where I lived are Switzerland and Florida. I never lived in NY or England and never claimed to.
Yet another example of you making stuff up, which apparently is the criteria for your posts. Make up a position, then stick to it despite being shown to be a liar.
"You are insulting the French because it is trendy."
Hmm. So, if I make a generalization that "french are rude" that makes me an idiot, but when you make the generalization that I must be insulting france because it's trendy, then that makes you what?
Oops, how's it feel there, smart guy? Sometimes you people really make it too easy.
So, good for you, rushing to the defense of France. Too bad you aren't bright enough to actually do anything other than rant and call names. Perhaps if you spent more time learning about reasoning and debate, and less time calling others idiots while behaving exactly like them, then you wouldn't look so ridiculous.
Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying, which applies perfectly. You claimed I used several falacious attacks, but failed to cite any sources that back you. Hell you called this
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
"How is performing a study not a job? Exactly."
Exaclty what? Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT. Just like you hire an independent auditor if you think your own auditor isn;t accurate, you hire independent researchers to give you their INDEPENDENT research.
Are you really so mentally deifcient that you didn;t know this, but chose to open your mouth anyway? It seems so. Funny that.
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company. That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.
Nice job making my point for me.
"Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy."
No, that's just what you think, but I've already proved you wrong (twice) so stop restating the same wrong things over and over as though you'll suddenly be right. You cannot speak to the worth of a study based on the funder. That is the same logical fallacy you've already committed, and denying it changes nothing.
"I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason."
No, you don't. You can claim to, but you continue to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are committing a fallacy. Who cares what your BS is in, because THAT'S THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!
Sometimes, you people make it too easy.
You got outsmarted, and you got educated. Instead of fighting the fact that you were wrong (as I've demonstrated for you to read in the handy definition of the fallacy you originally used) perhaps you could examine why you feel the need to make things up to try to win arguments on a web board.
Seriously, what's so pathetic and meaningless about your life that such behavior is desirable?
Why do you try so hard to be wrong?
(this is here you'll repost your arguments agian, with no new insight, because you won't ever admit you may have had the wrong side of something. That's fine, we both know the truth, and if you're ok with making things up and behaving like a child by continuously repeating disproven arguments, so be it. But you'll continue to look like an idiot. Just some advice)
"So, let me get this straight. To like someone is to post slanderous comments in an international message board, where you are guaranteed offence if you want it? Which is it? Do you like them or hate them? Something in between?"
It's clear you don't have the necessary mental horsepower to grasp such a concept as varying degrees of dislike, but you need to try harder. Not everything is black/white, but you've already demonstrated that you find such concepts to be confusing to you, so I'll spare you the terror of confronting things you don't understand.
"Please point out my "lies" or STFU"
Here it is, liar. You said it, it's not true, that makes it a lie. Deny if you like, but you did it, and it's not going anywhere. You lied, and now you're backpedaling.
"You hate French people, which you have already admitted to."
You didn't paste a quote that demonstrates that I see. Instead you spun it, in the best traditions of politicians who lie then have to own up.
"Perhaps I was wrong in saying you "hated" them, but from everyone elses point of view (including the mods it seems), you are simply France bashing. You may call me a liar for pointing out your irrational hatred, but you are beginning to look sillier with every post."
Perhaps, but I'm not intentionally saying things that are untrue in order to impress the readers and win the argument. That's just you.
Now, explain why you failed to admit you were lying?
Why is it that you can't admit you intentionally made a declaration that was false?
Why won't you accept that you got caught? Why won't you stop acting like a four year old and own up to what you did?
"I'm neither "outsmarted" or "embarased". Care to try again? And try to respond to my points this time, instead of cherry-picking the bits that you think will make your point."
No, I won't. You will simply make up another lie, and continue lying ad nauseum. No instead I'll ask why you have so little character that you have to lie on a web board to feel good about yourself?
"Absolutely shameful. I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian...and I'm definitely ashamed of being an American."
Why? These are individuals, who happen to share a country. They are linked by geography, nothing more. What is it about being an "American" that you are ashamed of?
And more importantly, why do you generalize these traits to all Americans? Are you going to try to make the point that Americans in LA are the same as Americans in Decatur, Ga? Please do, I bet that will be interestng reading.
And the worst? You fell for a poll, by CBS! It's a POLL! From CBS! Holy crap man, what is wrong with you allowing yourself to be intellectually manipulated like that?
"You hate French people, which you have already admitted to."
Then quote me. Cut it and paste it, and I'll come over and wash your car and paint your house.
I NEVER said I hated the French. Why do you find the need to lie?
See, this is why people like you disgust me. You try to make the point that your morality is somehow better, but then you openly LIE, and still expect to have any credibility.
You're embarassing yourself. Next time, you might want to bother actually reading what you're responding to instead of opening your mouth and jamming both feet in.
"The fact that I lump rascism into the same bucket as all the other trends you seem to adore means nothing."
NO, that's just what you tell yourself so you can feel superior. The truth is that you are not smart enough to see the subtle differences, so you ridicule those who do because you're ashamed of your shortcomings.
Just because you aren't intelligent enough to see the differences, that is no reason to pretend there are no differences.
"No, the war wasn't going anywhere and it was having a MASSIVE...BLAHBLAHBLAH"
Who quit first and why? Germany, and because they were incapable of continuing. You can look it up, but you won't because you're about looking right, not actually being right, and that's just sad.
So do us a favor, educate yourself, take a rhetoric course, and STOP BEING SUCH A LIAR. Your family won't have to be ashamed of you anymore, and you won't have a trail of idiotic posts to remind you how you got outsmarted and embarrassed. By an AMERICAN. THAT IS CONSERVATIVE!!! AND WORST OF ALL? You know it's true, and you'll still try to deny it.
NO, he was paid to do a STUDY, which is completely dependent on his individual credibility. You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
"Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?"
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
That argument didn't work in kindergarten, and it doesn't work here. Nice try with the semantic games, though.
"It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you"."
Ok then, Mr. All-I-do-is-talk, prove what I said wrong. Where am I factually inaccurate? Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided? And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
Face it, you're way out of your league here. We're discussing science and research, and since you clearly have no experience with either, it's best if you stick to making "soviet russia" jokes. That's more your caliber.
"The basic problem is that microsoft has no credibility any more."
First, thanks for not being a dick.
Second, this really has little to do with MS. It is the inability of the slashbots to separate MS from people who do work for MS that is the real problem.
All I;ve suggested in any of my posts on the subject is "Examine the evidence critically, using the well established protocols, and do not rely on your personal biases, because they are inappropriate."
If the research is bad, then examining in the same light as other research will expose the flaws.
The fact that the study was funded by MS is in no way a valid criticism, because I KNOW I can find at least one MS funded study that is well done.
"Your post basically says, "Okay... fooled me for the 863rd time, shame on me-- but I'm STILL going to give you the benefit of the doubt."
I cringe when people try to paraphrase my statements, and I did this time too. Ask yourself this, does this researcher have a history of shady dealings, or are you simply generalizing the traits of MS to those who do work for MS?
No, he was replying to a post about Alabama. The south was not mentioned. And you were replying to a post about Ohio.
"Fine, maybe he knows geography, but is unable to follow a thread of conversation without introducing a knee-jerk reflex defense of his own state and/or region, which wasn't even mentioned by the parent poster"
So what can we say about your inability to follow a conversation then?
"And, by the way, who does extensive research into which states allow marriage between cousins?"
Southereners who are sick of idiots trotting out the "you southerners marry your cousins crap" is probably the more realistic possibility.
Why are you so quick to go on the attack? Embarrased because you fucked up?
Seriousy, the next time you decide to be a dick for no reason, rememeber how badly you messed up this time, and maybe you'll reconsider.
"You are insulting someone based off where they are born. OK, that's not "race" per se, but it is rascism."
That says it all. No matter the level of proof I provide of your unwillingness to accept fact, you continue to insist something is true when it is not.
So there's really no point in continuing this.
I demonstrated you were wrong (numerous times) and that you're making claims of persecution that are false.
Oh, and you're too fucking stupid to admit you succumbed to the same PC crap that infects losers like you.
When you hate someone because of where they were born, that PREJUDICE, not racism. It doesn't matter though, becuase you're going to deny that too, just because you must be right, even if you're not.
And I insult the French bcause they're rude (generally, I lived in Switzerland, so I dealt with many of them) and because of their cowardly behavior in several conflicts. It has nothing to do with geographic location, which is actually quite nice.
No, what happened here is that you decided to take on a more educated, less impressionable, less naive person who out-thought you. And because of your inability to keep pace, you have decided to resort to the trick five year old children use, "YES HUH! You're WRONG, and I'M RIGHT!!!"
Very adult. Very pathetic.
Oh, one last thing this
"No one "won" WW1 and the losses were a large part of the French rolling over in WW2."
is a lie. Germany quit, FIRST, because they were losing. I realize you think you can twist that into "mutual agreement" but only the most zealous of historical revisionists will agree.
If you've never heard anyone say we won, it's because you hang out with imbeciles like you who think French = race.
By the way, I'm planning to print that, just so my friends can laugh at you.
"The people MS pay want more money from MS. If they publish something that MS does not like, especially if it is a report financed by MS then MS will not finance anymore studies with them."
That's just your assumption. The fact that you don't understand why your assumption is useless is why you're so clueless.
Please explain, using verifiable evidence, how you came to this conclusion about this specific study.
Because while what you say may be true for others, you have no right to criticise someone and their research, when the only evidence of bias you provide is your own.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it?"
Because they volunteered.
You'd have a point if we had a draft, but we don't so you don't.
"He was speaking of voters short attention span. That is voters who ignore the 2002 tax cuts but paid attention to what bush said prior to the election. Now we are back to more cuts."
That doesn't explain how he used the same examples for both sides of his argument.
I notice you conveniently avoid addressing that because he (you) realize that it was ridiculous and makes no sense.
"But my question to the mods is why are you still modded at 0?"
Because in the bastion of groupthink that is slashdot, I dissent. Apparently all the free speech talk goes out the window when people like you are given power over other's speech.
My question to you is, why are you so ashamed of your opinion that you're afraid to put your name to it?
Don't you think it's important to be consistent with your anti-Bush rant?
You post two examples of Bush stating his support for manned programs, then as if you think you've proven something, post ANOTHER article saying the SAME THING yet you use it as a counter example.
Even worse though, is the assertion that the statements were for votes in 2004, and as proof of that(?) you post a 2002 budget. 2002, if I'm correct, was before 2004. What do you think you've demonstrated?
What the fuck is wrong with you mods?
Why would YOU give her wages in US dollars then?
/month; she has a fully-paid-for house in a neighbouring small town.
You see, I didn't assume you meant the US, you GAVE ME a reason to assume it was the US.
NOWHERE did you mention the country (look, you'll realize I'm right) so getting huffy about is a little stupid.
Maybe you could be clearer in the future and not assume people know what you're thinking?
1st post you made
"You and the parent poster are probably rich folks who do not have to commute by public transportation many hours a day (one person I know stays 6 ho/day on the commuting bus.) I don't know in your town, but people in the bus down here are not the best conversationists."
Hmm, no country mentioned.
2nd post made
"That is a typical rich-person answer.
The woman I mentined earns US$ 300
* Her house is at least 10x cheaper than an equivalent house anywhere near the city (meaning, she can't just sell her house and try to move);
* her salary is not enough to eat, feed her son and pay for rent in the city;
* there are no equivalent employment opportunities in her town;
* she does not have enough money to go away from the country.
Now, it does not seem that simple, does it?"
Hey look, NO COUNTRY MENTIONED. Hmm, I see a pattern.
"and take your head out of your burgeoise way of thinking that the whole world is the US of A. The minimum wage down here is US$ 150/month (it used to be less than US$ 100/month, but the US dollar took a HUGE hit during this year.)"
No country there either.
It wasn't until your last post here
"I normally go ballistic when people call BS on me (I'm not a BS kind of guy...)
But this [google.com] should settle the issue. US$ 1 = R$ (BRL) 2.20, for reference."
that you made reference to a particular country.
So you'll understand why I assumed it was the US, since the only country you mentioned was the US in reference to the currency.
I'm tempted to make a snide comment here, but I believe it was an honest mistake so I won't. In the future though, I suggest you establish exactly where you're located first, because my impression was that most of the other respondents assumed it was the US as well.
"You guys that are saying that, you don't have the side of research on you."
There is NO consensus on this subject. Please stop trying to make it appear as if there is. You made many statements in your post which are unproven opinions. I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the subject, people just respond too differently to stimulus.
Punishment is effective for changing behaviors (notice I said "punishment" not "beating") and frankly, any attempt to argue otherwise should be immediately dismissed. But like any tool, it has a place, and using it incorrectly will lead to problems.
Lastly, I noticed that throughout your post you used inflammatory rhetoric to indicate corporal punsihment, such as "violence" and "beating". I doubt you'll find anyone credible who advocates beating a child, so lay off the hyperbole. It's a clear indicator of someone whose point is weak, and your isn't so weak that you need to resort to word games.
I love how you got all those people to respond to your post.
Finish off the joke and tell them you made it all up (because you did, and it's amazingly obvious).
Good one.
By the way 300 a month? You need to get out more, that's what gave your lie away (but there was a ton of other stuff too).
Please.
"You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida?"
See you're lying again. You'll find no such links, as the only mentions of where I lived are Switzerland and Florida. I never lived in NY or England and never claimed to.
Yet another example of you making stuff up, which apparently is the criteria for your posts. Make up a position, then stick to it despite being shown to be a liar.
You'll notice how you got modded flamebait on a website run by leftists.
That should give you an indication how far off of reality you've wandered.
"Actually, from what I recall, it was a different person you "caught lying." (Though I read the whole thread, and it appears your definition of "lying" seems to be much less rigorous than mine.)"
My criteria is "something that is demonstrably false" such as the idiot Windbourne's claims about PCR.
As for your definiton, I couldn't care less.
"You, OTH, did you grow up (or live) in Switzerland, England, NY, or Florida?"
See you're lying again. You'll find no such links, as the only mentions of where I lived are Switzerland and Florida. I never lived in NY or England and never claimed to.
Yet another example of you making stuff up, which apparently is the criteria for your posts. Make up a position, then stick to it despite being shown to be a liar.
"Don't get me wrong. I get tired of the trollers here (ifwm comes to mind)"
The only reason you don't like me is because I caught you lying and called you on it. You still haven't owned up to it by the way, why is that?
Also, do you know how incredibly sad it is that you have to follow me around using your mod points on everything I post?
"Quality is not some auxiliary adjunct property of an item, it is the SOLE value of the item."
The fact that you would make such an obviously false declaration means Your Credibility = 0.
Convenience has value for example.
Nice rant though. Mildly entertaining, but quality wise? No value.
"You are insulting the French because it is trendy."
Hmm. So, if I make a generalization that "french are rude" that makes me an idiot, but when you make the generalization that I must be insulting france because it's trendy, then that makes you what?
Oops, how's it feel there, smart guy? Sometimes you people really make it too easy.
So, good for you, rushing to the defense of France. Too bad you aren't bright enough to actually do anything other than rant and call names. Perhaps if you spent more time learning about reasoning and debate, and less time calling others idiots while behaving exactly like them, then you wouldn't look so ridiculous.
Well, let's see, I posted my definiton of the fallacy I was applying, which applies perfectly. You claimed I used several falacious attacks, but failed to cite any sources that back you. Hell you called this
"It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well."
and ad hominem. It's NOT an ad hominem, and the fact that you don;t know that calls the rest of your post into question.
"How is performing a study not a job? Exactly."
Exaclty what? Studies, which are often paid for by specific companies, ar ealso just as often reqired to be INDEPENDENT. Just like you hire an independent auditor if you think your own auditor isn;t accurate, you hire independent researchers to give you their INDEPENDENT research.
Are you really so mentally deifcient that you didn;t know this, but chose to open your mouth anyway? It seems so. Funny that.
"I am not assuming anything. Microsoft has demonstrated repeatedly their total lack of ethics. He accepted a *job* with an extremely dishonest company.
That fact alone puts his ethics very clearly in question."
Yay, you restated EXACTLY the same fallacy I started out denouncing. You know this one
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
Examples:
"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."
"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!"
The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.
Nice job making my point for me.
"Being suspicious of a study by a person who was paid to do a study by a company with a long history of buying bogus studies is basic common sense, not a logical fallacy."
No, that's just what you think, but I've already proved you wrong (twice) so stop restating the same wrong things over and over as though you'll suddenly be right. You cannot speak to the worth of a study based on the funder. That is the same logical fallacy you've already committed, and denying it changes nothing.
"I got my BS in mathematics, so I know quite a bit about logic and reason."
No, you don't. You can claim to, but you continue to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are committing a fallacy. Who cares what your BS is in, because THAT'S THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!
Sometimes, you people make it too easy.
You got outsmarted, and you got educated. Instead of fighting the fact that you were wrong (as I've demonstrated for you to read in the handy definition of the fallacy you originally used) perhaps you could examine why you feel the need to make things up to try to win arguments on a web board.
Seriously, what's so pathetic and meaningless about your life that such behavior is desirable?
Why do you try so hard to be wrong?
(this is here you'll repost your arguments agian, with no new insight, because you won't ever admit you may have had the wrong side of something. That's fine, we both know the truth, and if you're ok with making things up and behaving like a child by continuously repeating disproven arguments, so be it. But you'll continue to look like an idiot. Just some advice)
"So, let me get this straight. To like someone is to post slanderous comments in an international message board, where you are guaranteed offence if you want it? Which is it? Do you like them or hate them? Something in between?"
It's clear you don't have the necessary mental horsepower to grasp such a concept as varying degrees of dislike, but you need to try harder. Not everything is black/white, but you've already demonstrated that you find such concepts to be confusing to you, so I'll spare you the terror of confronting things you don't understand.
"Please point out my "lies" or STFU"
Here it is, liar. You said it, it's not true, that makes it a lie. Deny if you like, but you did it, and it's not going anywhere. You lied, and now you're backpedaling.
"You hate French people, which you have already admitted to."
You didn't paste a quote that demonstrates that I see. Instead you spun it, in the best traditions of politicians who lie then have to own up.
"Perhaps I was wrong in saying you "hated" them, but from everyone elses point of view (including the mods it seems), you are simply France bashing. You may call me a liar for pointing out your irrational hatred, but you are beginning to look sillier with every post."
Perhaps, but I'm not intentionally saying things that are untrue in order to impress the readers and win the argument. That's just you.
Now, explain why you failed to admit you were lying?
Why is it that you can't admit you intentionally made a declaration that was false?
Why won't you accept that you got caught? Why won't you stop acting like a four year old and own up to what you did?
"I'm neither "outsmarted" or "embarased". Care to try again? And try to respond to my points this time, instead of cherry-picking the bits that you think will make your point."
No, I won't. You will simply make up another lie, and continue lying ad nauseum. No instead I'll ask why you have so little character that you have to lie on a web board to feel good about yourself?
"Absolutely shameful. I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian...and I'm definitely ashamed of being an American."
Why? These are individuals, who happen to share a country. They are linked by geography, nothing more. What is it about being an "American" that you are ashamed of?
And more importantly, why do you generalize these traits to all Americans? Are you going to try to make the point that Americans in LA are the same as Americans in Decatur, Ga? Please do, I bet that will be interestng reading.
And the worst? You fell for a poll, by CBS! It's a POLL! From CBS! Holy crap man, what is wrong with you allowing yourself to be intellectually manipulated like that?
"You hate French people, which you have already admitted to."
Then quote me. Cut it and paste it, and I'll come over and wash your car and paint your house.
I NEVER said I hated the French. Why do you find the need to lie?
See, this is why people like you disgust me. You try to make the point that your morality is somehow better, but then you openly LIE, and still expect to have any credibility.
You're embarassing yourself. Next time, you might want to bother actually reading what you're responding to instead of opening your mouth and jamming both feet in.
"The fact that I lump rascism into the same bucket as all the other trends you seem to adore means nothing."
NO, that's just what you tell yourself so you can feel superior. The truth is that you are not smart enough to see the subtle differences, so you ridicule those who do because you're ashamed of your shortcomings.
Just because you aren't intelligent enough to see the differences, that is no reason to pretend there are no differences.
"No, the war wasn't going anywhere and it was having a MASSIVE...BLAHBLAHBLAH"
Who quit first and why? Germany, and because they were incapable of continuing. You can look it up, but you won't because you're about looking right, not actually being right, and that's just sad.
So do us a favor, educate yourself, take a rhetoric course, and STOP BEING SUCH A LIAR. Your family won't have to be ashamed of you anymore, and you won't have a trail of idiotic posts to remind you how you got outsmarted and embarrassed. By an AMERICAN. THAT IS CONSERVATIVE!!! AND WORST OF ALL? You know it's true, and you'll still try to deny it.
"He was paid by Microsoft to perform a job."
NO, he was paid to do a STUDY, which is completely dependent on his individual credibility. You're assuming he would risk that for a paycheck, which speaks more to your lack of ethics than his.
"The *required* assumption is that he is now working to help Microsoft. Period."
It's only required if you are completely devoid of ethics, and expect that everyone else is as well.
"Where could you possibly have gotten the idea that the default assumption *in any case ever* should be that the paid advocate is to be believed blindly until proven otherwise?!?"
Ok, I get it. HE'S NOT AN "ADVOCATE". You have assumed he is because you don't like his results. That's bad science, but I doubt very seriously if you care, because this about being right for you, not about the facts. You want MS to be evil, and by association, everyone around them must be evil as well.
That argument didn't work in kindergarten, and it doesn't work here. Nice try with the semantic games, though.
"It's probably the fact that what you ssaid isn't true, coupled with the fact that it is not a logical fallacy to be skeptical, coupled with the fact that your claim boils down to "believe whatever a corporate shill tells you"."
Ok then, Mr. All-I-do-is-talk, prove what I said wrong. Where am I factually inaccurate? Why is it NOT a logical fallacy when it meets the exact definfition of the fallacy provided? And why are you so fucking excited to be a shill for Novell? See, works both ways, but because you know nothing of logic and reason, you didn't see any of that coming.
Face it, you're way out of your league here. We're discussing science and research, and since you clearly have no experience with either, it's best if you stick to making "soviet russia" jokes. That's more your caliber.
He lives in Ohio. So does my dad, who was born in Florida. OH NO! You fucked up AGAIN.
Are you so keen to seem right that simple things like that escape you?
Or are you intentionally being a jackass?
"The basic problem is that microsoft has no credibility any more."
First, thanks for not being a dick.
Second, this really has little to do with MS. It is the inability of the slashbots to separate MS from people who do work for MS that is the real problem.
All I;ve suggested in any of my posts on the subject is "Examine the evidence critically, using the well established protocols, and do not rely on your personal biases, because they are inappropriate."
If the research is bad, then examining in the same light as other research will expose the flaws.
The fact that the study was funded by MS is in no way a valid criticism, because I KNOW I can find at least one MS funded study that is well done.
"Your post basically says, "Okay... fooled me for the 863rd time, shame on me-- but I'm STILL going to give you the benefit of the doubt."
I cringe when people try to paraphrase my statements, and I did this time too. Ask yourself this, does this researcher have a history of shady dealings, or are you simply generalizing the traits of MS to those who do work for MS?
No, he was replying to a post about Alabama. The south was not mentioned. And you were replying to a post about Ohio.
"Fine, maybe he knows geography, but is unable to follow a thread of conversation without introducing a knee-jerk reflex defense of his own state and/or region, which wasn't even mentioned by the parent poster"
So what can we say about your inability to follow a conversation then?
"And, by the way, who does extensive research into which states allow marriage between cousins?"
Southereners who are sick of idiots trotting out the "you southerners marry your cousins crap" is probably the more realistic possibility.
Why are you so quick to go on the attack? Embarrased because you fucked up?
Seriousy, the next time you decide to be a dick for no reason, rememeber how badly you messed up this time, and maybe you'll reconsider.
"You are insulting someone based off where they are born. OK, that's not "race" per se, but it is rascism."
That says it all. No matter the level of proof I provide of your unwillingness to accept fact, you continue to insist something is true when it is not.
So there's really no point in continuing this.
I demonstrated you were wrong (numerous times) and that you're making claims of persecution that are false.
Oh, and you're too fucking stupid to admit you succumbed to the same PC crap that infects losers like you.
When you hate someone because of where they were born, that PREJUDICE, not racism. It doesn't matter though, becuase you're going to deny that too, just because you must be right, even if you're not.
And I insult the French bcause they're rude (generally, I lived in Switzerland, so I dealt with many of them) and because of their cowardly behavior in several conflicts. It has nothing to do with geographic location, which is actually quite nice.
No, what happened here is that you decided to take on a more educated, less impressionable, less naive person who out-thought you. And because of your inability to keep pace, you have decided to resort to the trick five year old children use, "YES HUH! You're WRONG, and I'M RIGHT!!!"
Very adult. Very pathetic.
Oh, one last thing this
"No one "won" WW1 and the losses were a large part of the French rolling over in WW2."
is a lie. Germany quit, FIRST, because they were losing. I realize you think you can twist that into "mutual agreement" but only the most zealous of historical revisionists will agree.
If you've never heard anyone say we won, it's because you hang out with imbeciles like you who think French = race.
By the way, I'm planning to print that, just so my friends can laugh at you.
"The people MS pay want more money from MS. If they publish something that MS does not like, especially if it is a report financed by MS then MS will not finance anymore studies with them."
That's just your assumption. The fact that you don't understand why your assumption is useless is why you're so clueless.
Please explain, using verifiable evidence, how you came to this conclusion about this specific study.
Because while what you say may be true for others, you have no right to criticise someone and their research, when the only evidence of bias you provide is your own.
Jesus you people are clueless.
"Did you know it is illegal in Ohio and many other midwestern states? "
Dunno, looks to me like he says MIDWESTERN right there. Is that how they spell south where you come from?
If you think MIDWESTERN = south, you ARE an uneducated jackass.