"Seitz generally has as little time, if not less, for the media hype spewed on the Gore side of the equation."
Er,Rock, old boy, there are presently seven (7)
items visible on Adamant
http://adamant.typepad.com/
dealing directly with "media hype spewed on the Gore side of the equation."
But please read the leader first.
Have a nice rant.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Michael,
First of all, welcome back. Second, I'm not sure I understand the point you're getting at. I get the impression that you've brought an agenda to your thread, but I don't quite know what it is. I have an idea, but I don't want to misjudge your intentions. Kindly fill in the blanks for me..thanks.
I generally don't give alot of credibility to organizations, administrations or any group that completely shuns debate with a few exceptions. I won't engage in a debate with fundamental Christians who believe the world is roughly 6-10 thousand years old or less. I won't debate holocaust deniers, white (or black) supremacists, and most conspiracy theory people. They are 99.9% beyond hope. I won't even associate with them, and would go so far as to go out of my way to mock them. But I digress....help me out here Michael. I don't get it.
Sorry, up to my old tricks, post and go away for the weekend.
mnestheus:
When the post in question is derisory, I think vehement opposition is to be expected.
Also, I apologize for the ambiguous wording of "has little time for". My intention was to point out that he is usually equally, if not more, critical of bad media on the Green side of the Global Warming question.
Tim:
Thanks for the words of welcome. I don't think I'll be posting much. I think after this, I'll keep it to things, if any, that amuse me, rather than things that enrage me.
As for that rage thing, if your guess doesn't mesh with the motivation I am about to explain, I'd rather not know what it is. My problem, and it isMY problem, is that I am hopelessly, idealistically devoted to the concept of Absolute Truth. Rather than go into that deeply, and thereby hijack the thread, let me just say that even if you don't believe that Truth, or even lowercase truth can be ascertained and agreed upon in most cases, there is ONE area of human knowledge where this cannot be argued: mathematics. And since I took nothing more advanced than college-level calculus, let me revise that down to arithmetic.
Naib, Christopher, James, and Michael went into a fruit orchard. They split into pairs and each pair picked a different kind of fruit.
If Naib picked 39 apples and Christopher picked 24 apples, how many apples do they have if they put their apples together into one bushel basket?
Answer: 63
Now if James came back with 42 oranges and Michael gathered 16 oranges, how many oranges do they have to make orange juice with?
Answer: 58
But if you look more closely at the fruit, you find that Naib's 39 apples and James 42 oranges are bigger and juicier than Christopher's 24 apples and Michael's 16 oranges.
So why is it that Naib and Christopher get to say they have 63 really dramatic apples but James is called an idiotarian for trying to say that he and Michael have 58 oranges that are just as dramatic?
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
MTR,
If you claim to be after "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" (whatever that is), then be careful. I went through that exercise years ago and look at me, I'm a bleeding liberal humanistic atheist, but at least I can cook.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know."
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
MTR,
And you came nowhere near answering my question. You did manage to come across as a total raving lunatic that just got out of a voluntary rehab program, and I love it!! You do need to compress your posts though, it jacks up the blog.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
Obviously "adamantly opposed to answering fair questions" would be a better title for this thread. How about "Hit and run"? It was like you let out the huge fart then left the building. Thankfully, someone sprayed some glade (Thanks Rosemary).
Er,Rock, old boy, there are presently seven (7)
items visible on Adamant
http://adamant.typepad.com/
dealing directly with "media hype spewed on the Gore side of the equation."
But please read the leader first.
Have a nice rant.
First of all, welcome back. Second, I'm not sure I understand the point you're getting at. I get the impression that you've brought an agenda to your thread, but I don't quite know what it is. I have an idea, but I don't want to misjudge your intentions. Kindly fill in the blanks for me..thanks.
I generally don't give alot of credibility to organizations, administrations or any group that completely shuns debate with a few exceptions. I won't engage in a debate with fundamental Christians who believe the world is roughly 6-10 thousand years old or less. I won't debate holocaust deniers, white (or black) supremacists, and most conspiracy theory people. They are 99.9% beyond hope. I won't even associate with them, and would go so far as to go out of my way to mock them. But I digress....help me out here Michael. I don't get it.
mnestheus:
When the post in question is derisory, I think vehement opposition is to be expected.
Also, I apologize for the ambiguous wording of "has little time for". My intention was to point out that he is usually equally, if not more, critical of bad media on the Green side of the Global Warming question.
Tim:
Thanks for the words of welcome. I don't think I'll be posting much. I think after this, I'll keep it to things, if any, that amuse me, rather than things that enrage me.
As for that rage thing, if your guess doesn't mesh with the motivation I am about to explain, I'd rather not know what it is. My problem, and it is MY problem, is that I am hopelessly, idealistically devoted to the concept of Absolute Truth. Rather than go into that deeply, and thereby hijack the thread, let me just say that even if you don't believe that Truth, or even lowercase truth can be ascertained and agreed upon in most cases, there is ONE area of human knowledge where this cannot be argued: mathematics. And since I took nothing more advanced than college-level calculus, let me revise that down to arithmetic.
Naib, Christopher, James, and Michael went into a fruit orchard. They split into pairs and each pair picked a different kind of fruit.
If Naib picked 39 apples and Christopher picked 24 apples, how many apples do they have if they put their apples together into one bushel basket?
Answer: 63
Now if James came back with 42 oranges and Michael gathered 16 oranges, how many oranges do they have to make orange juice with?
Answer: 58
But if you look more closely at the fruit, you find that Naib's 39 apples and James 42 oranges are bigger and juicier than Christopher's 24 apples and Michael's 16 oranges.
So why is it that Naib and Christopher get to say they have 63 really dramatic apples but James is called an idiotarian for trying to say that he and Michael have 58 oranges that are just as dramatic?
If you claim to be after "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" (whatever that is), then be careful. I went through that exercise years ago and look at me, I'm a bleeding liberal humanistic atheist, but at least I can cook.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know."
-- John Keats
or if you prefer:
"Jack Butler: Wanna beer?"
"Ron Richardson: It's 7 o'clock in the morning."
"Jack Butler: Scotch?"
-- Michael Keaton and Marvin Mull in "Mr. Mom"
And you came nowhere near answering my question. You did manage to come across as a total raving lunatic that just got out of a voluntary rehab program, and I love it!! You do need to compress your posts though, it jacks up the blog.