I'm pretty sure the author of this article is the same guy who told me he doesn't wear his seat-belt because of an anicdote about a person being "thrown clear" of a car wreck that burned up.
I'm not at all sure that slammer was written based on info gleaned from the patch.
I'm even less certain that, on the whole, waiting for a real world exploit before releasing a patch makes sense.
I'm starting to like you, I think. So, if it's a creation of my own mind it's not concrete or articulable? That's a very polite way of putting it, at least.
I'm warming to you a bit, too;-)
I was actively avoiding the words "fiction" and "fantasy." I thought the phrasing I chose would be more constructive . ..
...though I have not served. Yet. I used to think I was too old. Now I'm guessing that this will come to a different sort of battle, in the "end", and I may yet get my chance.
Who knows? I thought that we (Like how I just lumped you and I together?) might get our "chance" in January 2000. I would not have been caught off-guard if the phones stopped working, the Emergency Broadcast system kicked on, National guard activated, FEMA showed up to "help," and the elections were canceled.
If it didn't happen then, I doubt either of us will see it . ..
chick in a black sweater came up to me and handed me this leaflet. The idea sounded reasonable to me. She didn't *look* like a politician.
This is a point where you and I differ. The majority of beatnik/hippy/counter-culture revolutionaries are political shills in a different guise. If you decry "arsenic in the water" you are tacitly collecting power to the government. This is my big beef with "environmentalism." I like clean water, but almost nothing is important enough to me to hand my personal power (aka freedom) over to the state to act on my behalf. The state is thrilled to act on my behalf, but is, inevitably, loath to act in my interest.
See that? As soon as you praise me for staying on point I veer off.
Several times you were on the verge of calling me a conspiracy theorist
Depends what you mean. If you mean I was on the verge of making an ad hominem argument, you are mistaken.
You are a conspiracy theorist. I think you will see this if you are honest with yourself. How is that relevant to the discussion?
And is it such a bad thing? That phrase has become a social label, like "Communist" or "homosexual."
I think that Communism is a bad idea (a nice one, but unworkable), and homosexuality doesn't sound like fun to me at all. I don't think any of the three are such terrible things to "be" though.
You might have a bit of a conditioned response to expect that from people "like" me . ..
and you came damned close to accusing me of supporting one a side in the whole matter.
. . . and I may have a bit of a conditioned response to expect a populist adjenda from (people I initially perceive to be) "Bush haters."
I might conclude that you are an extremist.
You'd probably be right. I'm okay with that.
This is, by my obsevation, one of the greatest weaknesses of the Libertarian position: the Libertairans I have personally spoken with largely believe that they are the only ones who "see the fnords"
I usually call myself libertarian, with some emphasis on the lower-case "l." I did capitalize it in the previous post for reasons in my own mind that made sense at the time . ..
I said I was warming to you before, I think that the allusion to Discordianism put you over the top. You're on my slashdot "friends" list now;-)
Anyway, it's been edifying, or at least frustrating in that good way.
Is that an either/or question? You seem to be implying that somehow the things that "spring fully formed" to my mind as I post are somehow unrelated to the "objective Universe"... a stance I find perjorative at best.
Sorry, I didn't mean that your mind isn't part of the Universe. I meant, do you have any sort of concrete, articulable reason to believe this, or it is purely a creation of your own mind.
It is of interest to me to know what causes masses of people to yeild up their power to such men. In some cases it is simple threat. In other cases the owners of the power have been convinced of some thing or things that are patently not true. In other cases people lend their power to these men because they believe it will somehow benefit them, personally.
Here's some common ground between us. Politically I am more or less a Libertarian. I think that politics, politicians, and government are mostly unnecessary evils.
This (obviously?) wasn't the case when I enlisted. That experience strengthened my convictions about minimalizing government.
Well, I'm not a gambling-type person, but I would bet there's a whole shitload of stuff you have never heard of out there in the "objective Universe".
I would not take that bet. I think that you have misjudged me. I am only too aware of how little I know. OTOH, when I do decide I "know" something I do like for it to be a hair more concrete than "Uh, I think some dude told me about this. Wasn't on CNN, so it must be true."
Everything CNN says is a lie. Start with that. I'm guessing you'll take a pass, rather than accept the obvious corrollary of: What you don't see on CNN is Truth.
Well, let's stipulate that everything said on CNN is a lie. Even given that assumption that corollary is not only not obvious, it is demonstrably false. That is an error in logical induction. CNN has never reported that I am the King of Spain, or that you are a Nazi sympathizer. Does your "obvious corrollary [sic]" prove those things true?
Frankly, Peter, it's not my job, nor my interest, to convince you of the truth or falsity of any of those things, nor to present you with proof of them.
I'm sorry, were you walking down the street and I jumped out of the bushes, grabbed you and started shaking you, demanding "Prove the connection! I want evidence!"?
You said it. You keep waving the word "truth" around like a talisman, but your definition of truth seems to be that you heard it somewhere besides CNN. You aren't on CNN, ergo I should believe you. Bizzare.
What exactly is your interest in my little off-the-cuff, "everybody knows" sort of remark? [. ..] Are you worried that I might be right, and you missed it?
Yes. Exactly. If what you I would very much like to know about it.
I see any particular reason to try, since any such attempts are invariably met with one or more of the techniques for truth suppression... a couple of which you have already (rather transparently, imo) tried to set me up for, haven't you now, hmmmmm?
Set you up for? I haven't set you up for anything. I have begged you to support you assertion because 1. I believe it is possible, but unlikely. (All sorts of things are possible, but unlikely. I can't begin to individually research them all. You asserted that there was a Bosnia/Oil connection.) 2. If it is true (and we are, apparently, operating under two irreconcilable definitions of what that word means.) it is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to know about.
Your response is to claim that I am trying to suppress some, as of yet, wholly unfounded, unsupported, undocumented, "truth."
Let's bring things back to a single point, and see if we can get anywhere from there.
You said, "US troops were committed to the Balkan's to protect the interests of Big Oil."
Did this thought spring, fully formed, from your mind as you posted, or is it in some way related to the objective Universe?
Okay, I can't limit myself to a single point;-)
You just said, "I believe this opinion of mine expresses a rather broader view of world events than you seem to find satisfying." That wholly depends on what you mean by "broad." I am intensely interested in politician's motivations. I think that this is illustrated by the fabricated quote that I described as interesting earlier. If, on the other hand, broad means interpreting the fact that CNN doesn't say something as evidence that something exists then I will, in fact, pass.
It is said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It seems that it goes without saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
You go on to say, "campus radicals are saying the same types of things I am about Bosnia and the oil interests? Well bully for them, I say. I wish them better luck than we had back in my day."
Does saying something make it true? You say that, "I will point out that I did not advance a theory," but you have repeatedly alluded to a Bosnia/oil connection, which I have never heard of. This certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but it does leave some question. If I repeatedly asserted that Bush was causing regulatory problems for auto factories in an attempt to give alternative fuel vehicles an advantage (in direct contravention of his apparent interests) would that not warrant some explanation beyond "I'll look it up, if you insist, but you should be able to find it fairly easily if you apply yourself using Google." Particularly if you did look it up on Google, and found only vaguely related material?
So the whole genocide thing was a ruse? Clinton torpedoed his own party by enriching prominent Republicans (to no perceptible benefit)? Who is Big Oil again? I take it from your capitalization that it is a proper noun . ..
I did a bit of googling, and found references to an "Balkan Oil War." It seems that the nearest fields are in Slovenia, and there is competition between Bosnia and Croatia to broker it. This is pretty standard stuff where commodities are involved.
I found reference to an announcement relating to constructing a pipeline through the region in 2002. It certainly isn't impossible that this is the fruit of plans laid by the Clinton administration in the '90s, but that seems to be a tenuous position to take.
I suppose that if you start with the presupposition that everything is a conspiracy relating to oil, and dig for evidence supporting that theory you are likely to be able to satisfy yourself. This is particularly the case if you reject substantial evidence of other causes (such a widely reported genocide), and evidence contrary to your theory (like the self-destructive effects to Clinton) in preference of the sort of nebulous evidence you cite.
This isn't to say you are wrong. I don't dismiss your claims out of hand. But I can only take them as seriously as you do. And frankly, it sounds like you aren't doing anything more serious than regurgitating what you heard hanging around your local college campus.
I will watch this thread. I am genuinely interested in any well-reasoned arguments or substantiated facts you can provide.
Give me something concrete, like:
Exxon couldn't sway the regime in Bosnia to allow the pipeline, as documented [here]. They contributed $XX to Clinton/Gore on [date], and on [date+3months] we began sending troops to the Balkans. Within three months of the installation of a new regime the pipeline was approved.
That would be interesting.
The current level of:
Dood, everyone who isn't a republocrat tool knows that Big Oil controls all elections, and that Big Oil forced the Supreme Court to do triple elimination roshambo to decide between Gore and shrub. If Clinton hadn't sent troops to force the installation of that pipeline they would have given him the same treatment they gave Kennedy.
That is not.
So surprise me -- increase the rigor by a couple of notches.
You can bet the oil companies made a profit on it -- that would be Bush/Cheney, in case you didin't realize. Nothing cheap about that shot...
You have completly lost me. Are you saying that Clinton comitted us to the Balkans (A.K.A "Bosnia") to make Bush and Cheney rich? On oil? There's oil in the Balkans? WTF are you talking about?
I think it would depend totally on what sort of political will "they" could muster in support of enforcement.
Here in the 'States there is a fairly strong sentiment that what a person does in his own home is his own business.* (I recall a story on/. about vans driving around in the UK finding people stealing cable by some sort of RF emissions. I don't see that flying in the U.S.)
OTOH, somewhere where "the law" is more of a cultural absolute (*ahem* Germany), I imagine that legal use of media would slightly increase, and "piracy" would experience a significant drop.
But, who the hell knows?
-Peter
*I don't mean to over-state my case here. I think there are one or two States left with sodomy laws. There are definitely States with fornication laws. Those have to to with our particular neurosis about sexuality. Stealing cable is pretty much an acceptable way to "stick it to the man" here. Every culture has its foibles;-)
I'm starting to believe that this stuff doesn't matter.
I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.
That's not to say that I don't think we'd be better off without this stuff. I'd rather not be a criminal, if it's all the same. OTOH, I'm not going to run Windows just so I can watch DVDs that I've bought.
I'm sure that you think it is very clever to pick on President Bush. Everyone's doing it, it must be cool.
Now, I'm no defender of the current administration, but here are two facts that put your comment in perspective:
1. The law in question here predates this administration. I believe that it was enacted under President Clinton -- but quite possibly by a Republican Congress. We just can't win, can we?
2. I personally "exported democracy" to the Balkans under the previous administration, to my personal loss.
Suffice it to say that I am rather unimpressed with your simple-minded cheap shot.
2) You may not download this Software if you are located in any country (or are a national of a country) subject to a general U.S. or U.N. embargo or are deemed to be a terrorist country (i.e., Cuba,Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Ouch! Why the patriotic license clause?
That is almost certainly because it contains strong encryption, which is considered munitions (!) under US export law.
We can debate that law (I think it is foolish), but it isn't VoteHere's fault.
The bigger question in my mind has always been: Why doesn't Obi-Wan rememer R2? Did someone take him to Anchorhead?
I think the answer to all of this is that Lucas doesn't give two shits about continuity. I think that this acutally shows in the original trilogy. I honestly belive that the whole Vader is Luke's father was an afterthough. I think that Obi's (He ain't got no Jedi name. Real name, no gimmicks.) story about truth and POV is just a thin spackle-job over the discontinuity of telling Luke that Vader killed his father.
Having said that, I am aching to know what the explanation about certain Jedi dissapearing when they die is. I think that the scene at Vader's pyre will take on new meaning (i.e. the suit is empty). I just hope it doesn't suck like the midichloran bit.
What have we learned today kids? If you are going to make some lame April Fool's Day joke on your website and submit it to Slashdot USE A FUCKING STATIC PAGE.
I haven't encountered one that it doesn't open yet. It is quite good. It also allows you to "Save as".doc (with a choice of version 6, 95, or 97/2000/XP).
I really hope that OO makes some inroads because I'm sick and tired of using Micro$oft's crappy excuse for products.
There is only one user you can truly control, and he is sick of using Office. Why does he keep doing it?
Take the plunge. You don't have to uninstall Office to install OO.o. Give it a try. I did, and I've never looked back.
I can't think of a self proclaimed group that doesn't have a significant portion of its "membership" that roundly fails to live up to the ideals of that group.
I concur that skeptics aren't an exception.
I certainly don't speak for skeptics as a whole, but it is my position that being skeptical is a two-way street; A theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand any more than it should be accepted blindly.
It is difficult to admit "I don't know." I think that fact accounts for both cynical "skeptics" and religious fervor . . . they are just opposite sides of the same coin.
Skeptics called everyone 'foolish' for believe that water could have existed in any significant quantities on mars, in any form.
No self-respecting skeptic would call an idea foolish when neither that idea nor its converse are substantiated by credible evidence.
Furthermore, no self-respecting skeptic would call anyone foolish while pursuing rational discourse, as it would be nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
I was genuinely congratulating you on your growing skepticism. Being skeptical just means you don't believe things unless the evidence warrants it. I don't see how that can be anything but a good thing.
Are you aware that in the early days of my (our, if you are an American) it was normal practice for politicians to own newspapers? A man would not be considered a viable candidate for the presidency if he didn't own a paper.
Everyone has an agenda (said Banky). To completely transcend one's own point of view is impossible. Furthermore, it is my perception that it is a rare journalist who even tries.
Slashdot Mirror
The second story down is somewhat on-topic . . .
Tech support tales.
-Peter
I'm pretty sure the author of this article is the same guy who told me he doesn't wear his seat-belt because of an anicdote about a person being "thrown clear" of a car wreck that burned up.
I'm not at all sure that slammer was written based on info gleaned from the patch.
I'm even less certain that, on the whole, waiting for a real world exploit before releasing a patch makes sense.
-Peter
Philippe, thanks for verbing the word transcript, when there was already a perfectly serviceable verb form: transcribe.
Anyway, I thought everyone knew it was pronounced "cute," though I always thought it should be "cutie." (Comeon, QT, Que Tee, cutie, right?)
-Peter
I'm warming to you a bit, too
I was actively avoiding the words "fiction" and "fantasy." I thought the phrasing I chose would be more constructive . .
Who knows? I thought that we (Like how I just lumped you and I together?) might get our "chance" in January 2000. I would not have been caught off-guard if the phones stopped working, the Emergency Broadcast system kicked on, National guard activated, FEMA showed up to "help," and the elections were canceled.
If it didn't happen then, I doubt either of us will see it . .
This is a point where you and I differ. The majority of beatnik/hippy/counter-culture revolutionaries are political shills in a different guise. If you decry "arsenic in the water" you are tacitly collecting power to the government. This is my big beef with "environmentalism." I like clean water, but almost nothing is important enough to me to hand my personal power (aka freedom) over to the state to act on my behalf. The state is thrilled to act on my behalf, but is, inevitably, loath to act in my interest.
See that? As soon as you praise me for staying on point I veer off.
Depends what you mean. If you mean I was on the verge of making an ad hominem argument, you are mistaken.
You are a conspiracy theorist. I think you will see this if you are honest with yourself. How is that relevant to the discussion?
And is it such a bad thing? That phrase has become a social label, like "Communist" or "homosexual."
I think that Communism is a bad idea (a nice one, but unworkable), and homosexuality doesn't sound like fun to me at all. I don't think any of the three are such terrible things to "be" though.
You might have a bit of a conditioned response to expect that from people "like" me . .
. . . and I may have a bit of a conditioned response to expect a populist adjenda from (people I initially perceive to be) "Bush haters."
You'd probably be right. I'm okay with that.
I usually call myself libertarian, with some emphasis on the lower-case "l." I did capitalize it in the previous post for reasons in my own mind that made sense at the time . .
I said I was warming to you before, I think that the allusion to Discordianism put you over the top. You're on my slashdot "friends" list now
Anyway, it's been edifying, or at least frustrating in that good way.
-Peter
(Of course, the emphasis above is mine.)
What a deliciously loaded question. My question to you: Do you deny that they solve any problems?
-Peter
Sorry, I didn't mean that your mind isn't part of the Universe. I meant, do you have any sort of concrete, articulable reason to believe this, or it is purely a creation of your own mind.
Here's some common ground between us. Politically I am more or less a Libertarian. I think that politics, politicians, and government are mostly unnecessary evils.
This (obviously?) wasn't the case when I enlisted. That experience strengthened my convictions about minimalizing government.
I would not take that bet. I think that you have misjudged me. I am only too aware of how little I know. OTOH, when I do decide I "know" something I do like for it to be a hair more concrete than "Uh, I think some dude told me about this. Wasn't on CNN, so it must be true."
Well, let's stipulate that everything said on CNN is a lie. Even given that assumption that corollary is not only not obvious, it is demonstrably false. That is an error in logical induction. CNN has never reported that I am the King of Spain, or that you are a Nazi sympathizer. Does your "obvious corrollary [sic]" prove those things true?
I'm sorry, were you walking down the street and I jumped out of the bushes, grabbed you and started shaking you, demanding "Prove the connection! I want evidence!"?
You said it. You keep waving the word "truth" around like a talisman, but your definition of truth seems to be that you heard it somewhere besides CNN. You aren't on CNN, ergo I should believe you. Bizzare.
Yes. Exactly. If what you I would very much like to know about it.
Set you up for? I haven't set you up for anything. I have begged you to support you assertion because 1. I believe it is possible, but unlikely. (All sorts of things are possible, but unlikely. I can't begin to individually research them all. You asserted that there was a Bosnia/Oil connection.) 2. If it is true (and we are, apparently, operating under two irreconcilable definitions of what that word means.) it is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to know about.
Your response is to claim that I am trying to suppress some, as of yet, wholly unfounded, unsupported, undocumented, "truth."
Let's bring things back to a single point, and see if we can get anywhere from there.
;-)
You said, "US troops were committed to the Balkan's to protect the interests of Big Oil."
Did this thought spring, fully formed, from your mind as you posted, or is it in some way related to the objective Universe?
Okay, I can't limit myself to a single point
You just said, "I believe this opinion of mine expresses a rather broader view of world events than you seem to find satisfying." That wholly depends on what you mean by "broad." I am intensely interested in politician's motivations. I think that this is illustrated by the fabricated quote that I described as interesting earlier. If, on the other hand, broad means interpreting the fact that CNN doesn't say something as evidence that something exists then I will, in fact, pass.
It is said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It seems that it goes without saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
You go on to say, "campus radicals are saying the same types of things I am about Bosnia and the oil interests? Well bully for them, I say. I wish them better luck than we had back in my day."
Does saying something make it true? You say that, "I will point out that I did not advance a theory," but you have repeatedly alluded to a Bosnia/oil connection, which I have never heard of. This certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but it does leave some question. If I repeatedly asserted that Bush was causing regulatory problems for auto factories in an attempt to give alternative fuel vehicles an advantage (in direct contravention of his apparent interests) would that not warrant some explanation beyond "I'll look it up, if you insist, but you should be able to find it fairly easily if you apply yourself using Google." Particularly if you did look it up on Google, and found only vaguely related material?
-Peter
I did a bit of googling, and found references to an "Balkan Oil War." It seems that the nearest fields are in Slovenia, and there is competition between Bosnia and Croatia to broker it. This is pretty standard stuff where commodities are involved.
I found reference to an announcement relating to constructing a pipeline through the region in 2002. It certainly isn't impossible that this is the fruit of plans laid by the Clinton administration in the '90s, but that seems to be a tenuous position to take.
I suppose that if you start with the presupposition that everything is a conspiracy relating to oil, and dig for evidence supporting that theory you are likely to be able to satisfy yourself. This is particularly the case if you reject substantial evidence of other causes (such a widely reported genocide), and evidence contrary to your theory (like the self-destructive effects to Clinton) in preference of the sort of nebulous evidence you cite.
This isn't to say you are wrong. I don't dismiss your claims out of hand. But I can only take them as seriously as you do. And frankly, it sounds like you aren't doing anything more serious than regurgitating what you heard hanging around your local college campus.
I will watch this thread. I am genuinely interested in any well-reasoned arguments or substantiated facts you can provide.
Give me something concrete, like:
That would be interesting.
The current level of:
That is not.
So surprise me -- increase the rigor by a couple of notches.
-Peter
You have completly lost me. Are you saying that Clinton comitted us to the Balkans (A.K.A "Bosnia") to make Bush and Cheney rich? On oil? There's oil in the Balkans? WTF are you talking about?
-Peter
I think it would depend totally on what sort of political will "they" could muster in support of enforcement.
/. about vans driving around in the UK finding people stealing cable by some sort of RF emissions. I don't see that flying in the U.S.)
;-)
Here in the 'States there is a fairly strong sentiment that what a person does in his own home is his own business.* (I recall a story on
OTOH, somewhere where "the law" is more of a cultural absolute (*ahem* Germany), I imagine that legal use of media would slightly increase, and "piracy" would experience a significant drop.
But, who the hell knows?
-Peter
*I don't mean to over-state my case here. I think there are one or two States left with sodomy laws. There are definitely States with fornication laws. Those have to to with our particular neurosis about sexuality. Stealing cable is pretty much an acceptable way to "stick it to the man" here. Every culture has its foibles
I'll agree to fight this as a first amendment issue, if you'll agree to support my rights under the second :-P
In all seriousness, you make an excellent point on a philosophical level. Can you cite any concrete examples?
-Peter
I'm starting to believe that this stuff doesn't matter.
I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.
That's not to say that I don't think we'd be better off without this stuff. I'd rather not be a criminal, if it's all the same. OTOH, I'm not going to run Windows just so I can watch DVDs that I've bought.
I guess time will tell.
-Peter
Where did I claim you (or everyone) love(s) Clinton? I, as I explicitly stated, tried to place your comments in perspective. I think I succeeded.
Ah, a point on which we agree totally
-Peter
PS: The framers did not intend to create a Democracy, but a Republic. The Civil War obliterated that dream.
-P
I'm sure that you think it is very clever to pick on President Bush. Everyone's doing it, it must be cool.
Now, I'm no defender of the current administration, but here are two facts that put your comment in perspective:
1. The law in question here predates this administration. I believe that it was enacted under President Clinton -- but quite possibly by a Republican Congress. We just can't win, can we?
2. I personally "exported democracy" to the Balkans under the previous administration, to my personal loss.
Suffice it to say that I am rather unimpressed with your simple-minded cheap shot.
-Peter
That is almost certainly because it contains strong encryption, which is considered munitions (!) under US export law.
We can debate that law (I think it is foolish), but it isn't VoteHere's fault.
-Peter
The bigger question in my mind has always been: Why doesn't Obi-Wan rememer R2? Did someone take him to Anchorhead?
I think the answer to all of this is that Lucas doesn't give two shits about continuity. I think that this acutally shows in the original trilogy. I honestly belive that the whole Vader is Luke's father was an afterthough. I think that Obi's (He ain't got no Jedi name. Real name, no gimmicks.) story about truth and POV is just a thin spackle-job over the discontinuity of telling Luke that Vader killed his father.
Having said that, I am aching to know what the explanation about certain Jedi dissapearing when they die is. I think that the scene at Vader's pyre will take on new meaning (i.e. the suit is empty). I just hope it doesn't suck like the midichloran bit.
Here's hoping.
-Peter
But in Korean it means "mosquito."
Mogi chogi yogi.
-Peter
Bullwinkle!
The only reason I even read the replies to this story was to see if anyone beat me to making the RHPS connection. You win, senahj.
It's not easy having a good time.
-Peter
What have we learned today kids? If you are going to make some lame April Fool's Day joke on your website and submit it to Slashdot USE A FUCKING STATIC PAGE.
-Peter
Are you YT's mom?
-Peter
I always suspected that muther fucker was a Capenters fan!
-Peter
I haven't encountered one that it doesn't open yet. It is quite good. It also allows you to "Save as"
There is only one user you can truly control, and he is sick of using Office. Why does he keep doing it?
Take the plunge. You don't have to uninstall Office to install OO.o. Give it a try. I did, and I've never looked back.
-Peter
I guess you are right.
I can't think of a self proclaimed group that doesn't have a significant portion of its "membership" that roundly fails to live up to the ideals of that group.
I concur that skeptics aren't an exception.
I certainly don't speak for skeptics as a whole, but it is my position that being skeptical is a two-way street; A theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand any more than it should be accepted blindly.
It is difficult to admit "I don't know." I think that fact accounts for both cynical "skeptics" and religious fervor . . . they are just opposite sides of the same coin.
-Peter
No self-respecting skeptic would call an idea foolish when neither that idea nor its converse are substantiated by credible evidence.
Furthermore, no self-respecting skeptic would call anyone foolish while pursuing rational discourse, as it would be nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
This concludes today's lesson on skepticism.
-Peter
I was genuinely congratulating you on your growing skepticism. Being skeptical just means you don't believe things unless the evidence warrants it. I don't see how that can be anything but a good thing.
;-)
Are you aware that in the early days of my (our, if you are an American) it was normal practice for politicians to own newspapers? A man would not be considered a viable candidate for the presidency if he didn't own a paper.
Everyone has an agenda (said Banky). To completely transcend one's own point of view is impossible. Furthermore, it is my perception that it is a rare journalist who even tries.
Peace back at you, brother
-Peter