I bought a gun to prepare for WW3

[badmotogoozer]

Don't worry, that's just Hackracks odd way of communicating. Not worth taking it to heart anyway.

 

Taken to heart? Never. It has put him on my list of unreliable sources though.

 

Rj

[Guest Nogbad]

Taken to heart? Never. It has put him on my list of unreliable sources though.

 

Rj

 

Put it like this: If he ever stands for office, he wouldn't get my vote......

[Martin Barrett]

 

 

Time to hit the G&T - I gotta catch up to Martin.

 

Rj

 

3rd pint downed and I'm out of G So I'm calling it time. Perhaps a coffee now or should I have squash/water to avoid dehydration. Not at work till 4pm tomorrow but kids are on holiday so no lay in for me. Did I say tomorrow just clicked past midnight here.

[Guest ratchethack]

Ratchet, economics and sociology are not true sciences in that there are no absolute positions to discover. It is all opinion and conjecture.

Ah. So the leading expertise on gun control is nothing better than opinion and conjecture.

 

Well, I can understand that if you don't know the first thing about gun control, and if you've never actually read a leading scientific analysis of the data, how your uneducated speculation could be so profoundly inaccurate.

 

Did you hope to dismiss the expertise I've cited with this ridiculous conclusion? I submit that it puts you up against a rather large field of legitimate scientific analysis -- whether you deny its existence or not.

I find your overweening arrogance unhelpful.

Of course you do, Nog. I've not been helping your lack of basis for argument here one whit.

 

Again - as Thomas Sowell put it so well in post #98 in this thread, "Most of the gun controllers' arguments are a house of cards. No wonder they don't want any hard facts coming near them."

 

Yeah - When forced to come up with backup for your position, best just claim that it's all opinion and conjecture. . . .

[dlaing]

Al Jazzeera and Ahmadinejad spring to mind, both profligate sources of world Propaganda. Millions upon millions of victims of their propaganda believe it never happened. Are you one of them?? <_>

My dictionary does not have a verb form of the word profligate.

Care to choose another word?

[Anthro]

economics and sociology are not true sciences in that there are no absolute positions to discover. It is all opinion and conjecture.

 

I find your overweening arrogance unhelpful.

 

Your disappointment may be attendible, but let me dis-agree in regards of your opinion aboout social sciences.

 

In fact some of the social sciences grew as a need of the Europenans (Brit) empires to control large foreign - native - populations... it is not a 'hard science' so some of the colonies -given certain conditions- kicked the empire out.

 

Social sciences are widely utilized for population control -forming for example what Ratchethack would call collective thinking-, so your 'feel good' underwear may be 'calvin klein', or you would rather have a Coke than the real thing, or you keep allowing your tax to go to the royal house.

 

Yes it is not hard science, but the art of monkey wrenching someone elses life has being cultivated into few realted disciplines.

-----

 

Me I just can not stand weapons, with them is way too easy to kill.

 

May be the problem is the desire to kill.

 

If it is so, we may highlight living conditions and education as basic means to value life and human rights.

 

Since there is no test to evaluate anyone about the meanings of human rights and how sincere you are about that them... I just can no see a reason to allow anyone to posses a firearm.

 

If we consider this issues in a population rather than personal view, we should see statistics about firearms related deaths before deciding on laws about. If we follow that path, it seems that Canada's people should be allowed to have firearms and USA people should not...

 

 

Anthro

[g.forrest]

well said anthro.. i feel many on this forum have well established that one ratchet is all abought a state of mind. in his insecure life has he ever used his protection device or threatened to use it or found any need to show it. i doubt it. a mere new age for old values spin doctor with a paranoid view. but possibly not a bad fellow. if he could trust one enough to get to know him.

Your disappointment may be attendible, but let me dis-agree in regards of your opinion aboout social sciences.

 

In fact some of the social sciences grew as a need of the Europenans (Brit) empires to control large foreign - native - populations... it is not a 'hard science' so some of the colonies -given certain conditions- kicked the empire out.

 

Social sciences are widely utilized for population control -forming for example what Ratchethack would call collective thinking-, so your 'feel good' underwear may be 'calvin klein', or you would rather have a Coke than the real thing, or you keep allowing your tax to go to the royal house.

 

Yes it is not hard science, but the art of monkey wrenching someone elses life has being cultivated into few realted disciplines.

-----

 

Me I just can not stand weapons, with them is way too easy to kill.

 

May be the problem is the desire to kill.

 

If it is so, we may highlight living conditions and education as basic means to value life and human rights.

 

Since there is no test to evaluate anyone about the meanings of human rights and how sincere you are about that them... I just can no see a reason to allow anyone to posses a firearm.

 

If we consider this issues in a population rather than personal view, we should see statistics about firearms related deaths before deciding on laws about. If we follow that path, it seems that Canada's people should be allowed to have firearms and USA people should not...

Anthro

[mike wilson]

My dictionary does not have a verb form of the word profligate.

Care to choose another word?

 

He's using it as an adjective there.

[g.forrest]

[ah...old english teachers.can;t help but keep up the good work.quote name=mike wilson' date='Aug 31 2006, 09:06 PM' post='99321]

He's using it as an adjective there.

[Guest ratchethack]

My dictionary does not have a verb form of the word profligate.

Care to choose another word?

Care to choose another dictionary? There are at least a dozen good ones online.

 

Just a thought.

 

He's using it as an adjective there.

For those of us (myself included) who can always benefit from a little brushing up on our use of the language, I submit the following, which just arrived in my inbox over the magic, ethereal medium of the Internet.

 

After yet another horrendous drop last year here in the US in SAT scores (Scholastic Aptitude Test - used as a basis for College entrance evaluations) - in keeping with our Nation's 50-year secondary education ranking slide from World Leader to middle-of-the-pack World Follower, it's at least somewhat encouraging to see that not all students of English here are completely brain-dead after all.

 

At least there's a sense that healthy irreverence and sarcasm are alive and well.

__________

 

Every year, English teachers from across the country can submit their collections of actual similes and metaphors found in high school essays. These excerpts are published each year to the amusement of teachers across the country. Here are last year's winners:

 

1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a thigh Master.

 

2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

 

3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

 

4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E.Coli, and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.

 

5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.

 

6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

 

7. He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.

 

8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.

 

9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

 

10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.

 

11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30.

 

12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.

 

13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

 

14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.

 

15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.

 

16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.

 

17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant, and she was the East River.

 

18. Even in his last years, Granddad had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.

 

19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.

 

20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.

 

21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.

 

22. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

 

23. The ballerina rose gracefully en Pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

 

24. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

 

25. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

[dlaing]

He's using it as an adjective there.

Dang! Thank you.

I should have tried conjugating it as an adjective before writiing it off as misused verb....sounded like a verb when I read it

So he is saying

Al Jazzeera and Ahmadinejad spring to mind, both profligate(debauched, degenerate, degraded, dissipated, dissolute) sources of world Propaganda. Millions upon millions of victims of their propaganda believe it never happened. Are you one of them?? dry.gif

Do you have any examples of Al Jazeera's profligate coverage?

I find they cover the news from the RELATIVE perspective of Islam very well and fairly.

I am not familiar with Ahmadinejad.

Care to site some examples of Al Jazeera's profligate spreading of Holocaust denial?

Or is this empty paranoid innuendo?

Islam predictably has many people that subscribe to holocaust denial, but I doubt that is because of Al Jazeera.

Do you think their news media should not cover it at all?

Does the Al Jazeera actually say the holocaust was a hoax?

I think not.

A quick google of Al Jazeera did not show such endorsement, but showed the president of Iran saying that it was scientifically debateable.

Should they have censored that article?

Some spread rumors that human caused global warming is not happening, yet we don't censor them.

[Guest ratchethack]

Do you have any examples of Al Jazeera's profligate coverage?

I find they cover the news from the RELATIVE perspective of Islam very well and fairly.

Is this your idea of "fairness", Dave? I'm pretty sure you agree with much of the message - perhaps you agree with it 100%?

 

It's one example of many. I found this one in about 30 seconds.

 

The following are excerpts of an interview with Palestinian-Jordanian author Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on August 23, 2005. To view this clip, visit: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=824

[dlaing]

Is this your idea of "fairness", Dave? I'm pretty sure you agree with much of the message - perhaps you agree with it 100%?

 

It's one example of many. I found this one in about 30 seconds.

 

The following are excerpts of an interview with Palestinian-Jordanian author Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on August 23, 2005. To view this clip, visit: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=824

That had almost nothing to do with holocaust denial, just one sentence of many of a rambling guest speaker, presumably edited not by Al Jazeera but by Memri. The sloppy editting is clearly obvious.

 

Compare that to the fairness found at your sacred Wall Street Journal(it took me more like 3minutes to find this)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004796

"Today is the first anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. I want to thank Corrie for the explosives that flow freely from Egypt to Gaza, via the smuggling tunnels under the Gaza homes that she died defending."

 

But getting back to Al Jazeera, when I googled " site:english.alJazeera.net holocaust denial "

The first and second thing I got was some German deported from the US to do time in Germany for holocaust denial.

I thought it fairly covered the story.

The third thing I got fairly covered the distinction of the myth of the holcaust compared to the denial.

The article seemed to have a bias against denial....I guess that was not fair, but I probably would have written with the same bias.

The fourth covered a brit going to prison in Austria for questioning the death of 6 million durring the Holocaust. I thought it was fair coverage. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was a little absurd, but I suspect that was deliberate to balance the absurdity of holocaust denial criminalization.

The fifth seems to accept a Jew's claim of losing his parent to the holocaust.

I need not read further unless you can find real evidence of Al Jazeera's profligate propaganda.

[dlaing]

And for sake of fair and balanced coverage, let us look at the first five from this google search

site:www.opinionjournal.com holocaust denial

 

First one, clear bias against holocaust denial.

Second one, also a clear bias regarding the denial, but an excellent article none the less, because of its respect for free speech.

Third one sounded like absurd denier paranoia, but hard to tell as the links to follow were dead.

Fourth one, I think I am beginning to see where Ratchet learned how to argue.

The bias is clearly anti-denial, as it should be, but they are little unfounded to with the comments about mad mullah news agencies. Unless they can prove the madness, which they do not.

Perhaps it is commonly known that Mullahs are Mad, and I just missed the propaganda boat

Fifth one, seems pretty fair bias against denial, and he makes a good argument not to support this Republican...but he kind of loses it on the KKK/NAACP analogy.

 

So, far Al Jazeera is way ahead in the un-biased coverage category.

Maybe there should be a bias and all holocaust deniars should be ridiculed, but for Al Jazeera to be critical, but more mildly critical than the Wall Street Journal Opinon Page is beyond reproach when judging news sources.

[Guest ratchethack]

And for sake of fair and balanced coverage, let us look at the first five from this google search

site:www.opinionjournal.com holocaust denial

OMG. Dave, upon what basis for trust in Google do you place your entire perspective on your dark and purply little world?? On Google we trust, is it?!?!

 

So, far Al Jazeera is way ahead in the un-biased coverage category.

Maybe there should be a bias and all holocaust deniars should be ridiculed, but for Al Jazeera to be critical, but more mildly critical than the Wall Street Journal Opinon Page is beyond reproach when judging news sources.

If there is a more perfect example of the methodology of brainwashing, GROUPTHINK, mind control, indoctrination, and blind stupidity than this, I don't know what it is. . . . .

 

I thought you were looking for examples of profligacy and bias at Al Jazeera. It's what you asked for, and what I provided. No comment on what I linked, or your support of the message at all. It appears by your comments and lack of response to my direct question that you are in full agreement with the message in the video at the link, and that denial of the holocaust fits your idea of "fair and balanced".

 

It appears that consensus defines bias and lack thereof in your mind. The concept had been discussed at length on the GW thread. Perhaps you missed this along with everything else. Yet not only are you ignoring the reality that consensus has NO CORRELATION with objectivity - especially in a mass media world dominated by Popular Kulture Propaganda, you're using a search engine that doesn't even rely fully on consensus to rank search hits.

 

Your thinking here is typical of how your GROUPTHINK propagandists have so carefully conditioned you. When you're swimming in a sea of your fellow GROUPTHINK lemmings, there IS no apparent "bias" to you, is there, Dave? You have no semblance of objectivity whatsoever. After all, objectivity would be a real problem for your Propagandists. Objectivity and individual thought processes have been as carefully excised from your mind as if by a surgeon's scalpel. You're the perfect GROUPTHINK stooge. You can be sheared at will and driven like a herd animal to the slaughterhouse at your master's whim.

 

Do you know how Google works? The rankings of the "hits" you get on a search DO NOT by any logic, amount to a measurement scale for "bias" via ranking of hits on a search. I work for a consulting company that pays on a "per click" basis for the number of "hits" we get on our Web pages from Google searches. If we want a higher ranking on searches that result in more clicks, we pay a higher fee for a higher ranking to get more hits on searches. We can adjust our Google ranking any way we want, any time we want, and there are no limits. If we wished, we could be #1 on every search we had an interest in.

 

When you said, ". . . Al Jazeera is way ahead in the un-biased coverage category", You clearly laid out how you've defined your definition of bias by the ranking of a Google search!!

 

It's a wonderful thing when you allow yourself to habitually, and seemingly without a care, defer your ability to think as an individual to others, isn't it, Dave? Life becomes so much easier and free from all the nasty effort of applying all that troublesome reason and logic and actually thinking for yourself. Let someone else think for you. Put all your trust in the propagandists who've defined your world view for you. Go with the flow. Stretch out with your FFEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS and let the FORCE of GROUPTHINK take you where it may. . . . .

 

Ahmadinejad and the rest of your Propagandists certainly have you pegged. They're playing you like a Steinway. Ahmadinejad may seem like a wild-eyed nut log, but he's certainly shrewd enough to have your number. He's counting on you, Dave. Ever wonder what life would actually be like for you in the world he has in mind for you, Dave? I'm thinking not much like your dark and purply world of Remulac.