November 12, 2005

Do Flame Wars Contribute To Global Warming, Are Paul and York Environmentally Sound? Tune In Beloved Readers

Flame War! Wikipedia defines flaming as: "The motive for flaming is often not dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Sometimes, flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority.?" And so it is. On the other hand, we at GM's Corner are not about to let challenges go unanswered because to do so merely encourages the scoundrels (was that necessary?... ed... Probably not, but when I have an itch I scratch it... GM)

Yes, by all means let's talk about Mark A. York's qualifications. First, he is as narcissistic as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Mark brags about "endangered fisheries." This of course he means to imply that he is fighting to save, as he once published in the "DailySundial" wild salmon. But fisheries is defined as:

The industry or occupation devoted to the catching, processing, or selling of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals.
A place where fish or other aquatic animals are caught.
A fishing business.
A hatchery for fish.
The legal right to fish in specified waters or areas.
Hah, this guy has a bachelors degree in journalism Not biology, if he has any biology at all, it is as a minor and that requirement is only 18 hours. Furthermore, according to his book, he was a GS-4 Technician.... The lowest of the low, the least qualified of the qualified, so low that a degreed person with NO experience was placed over him in his sojourn to the ANWR and that his work was seasonal. Oh, and his lifetime of environmental work... hmmm, according to his own words (he published this remember): he spent 17 years as a construction worker going from "the kid who always got beat up to the terminator." as he protected the others in his fisheries crew from having to deal with the "tough" oil field hands.

Oh, by the way, that's from his book "Against A Strong Current and you can find an excerpt here: Chapter 7. Interesting book by all accounts... NOT!

Actually, this book is sent to an electronic publisher, not accepted for mass publication by an “accepted publisher”, but printed on order by Xlibris Corp a vanity type press and he rails against Woody and me for unsourced material but where we weren’t being humorous, we sourced just fine. Oh, and by the way, Mark has a screed against the vanity press here: July, 07 which when you read it is hilarious; this guy has more bathos than the Marx Brothers. But I digress, here is a "review" of York's Against A Strong Current:

Refreshingly objective and candid nonfiction concerning an issue at the core of our very existence-the environment.

While others turn a blind eye or are swayed by the powers that be seeking to exploit the
planet, the author is a fearless champion for the planet as evidenced also by the conditions he braves on his quest. [emphasis added, but I couldn’t help myself my gawd, this guy is overweening]

At the core of our very existence. Lion's and Tigers and Bears Oh My!!

That review is a little over the top and I have absolutely no doubt that York himself wrote it using a fake ID for the purpose. However there are two other reviews which kind of put York in his place:

Sorry Mark, but this book needs some first aid. I decided to read it after reading the author's comments in a Rick Bass review. It reads like a stump-filled hillside, slipping, tripping, and falling all over the place. There is no sense that it was edited; there are misspellings, frags, story lines smashed to bits. Descriptions of the beautiful areas are adjective-free. There is also a lot of what I sense as " doesn't play well with others." I'll stop here.............
this book lacked any sort of editing on the author's part. seeing as the book was published with Print On Demand technology, he had no editor. It seems like he wrote this in a week -- maybe two -- tops, then just handed it in. Couldn't believe the horrible editing.

Editing makes a book hard to read, skimming over all those errors. Sigh.

Hey, i tried to read it. But... it was just so bland and awful - and that's editing aside.

Atta boy York, slammed twice for your hubris. However, our intrepid enviro-warrior doesn't quit, I'll give him that. Take a look at the sites he has been banned at beginning with mine (yet, he continues to come around). Also here (Roger Simon) and here (Done Deal) here (Press Think - 2 times no less). He claimed to be a "pen pal of sorts" with Bill Clinton He was kicked out of Yahoo Groups. Lastly, and then I'll quit because I really hate having a battle of wits with York when it is so obvious that he is half armed; York was banned from my blog for the use of foul language. He claims he didn't use anything stronger than "ass" and, unfortunately I deleted all the really vile language and York knows it. Unfortnately for York, the net is full of his postings and he typically and usually gets frustrated (low frustration tolerance is a hallmark of lefty trolls) and posts something like this [WARNING - strong language follows]

How pathetic do you have to to (sic) fixate on one website to get control for your sick ideas you ignorant shithead. I’ll tell you what Timo if I could get a hold [of] your sick neck it would be broken. Now that’s a promise you fvcking (sic) ad hom (sic) machine. Is it true because the credential-less tim-troll says it? LOL! What a dickhead. You scared little twit.
with all those misspellings this guy purports to have a degree in journalism? "Ass" indeed! "... doesn't play well with others." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Which brings us to Randy Paul’s entry in the flame wars. Paul advertises his blog as “A Proud Member Of The Reality Based Community.” Oh my! He congratulates York here:

I thought that I would comment on this bizarre post attempting - with the aid of a right-wing think tank no less - (talk about aiming low and still missing your target) to refute claims that global warming is real, but someone beat me to it and did it well.
Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source” and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

OK, let’s go on to Paul’s qualifications in this little bit of byte-drama. Paul has a … are you ready… degree in F….I….L….M! There you have it boys and girls. A degree in film and a good deal of knowledge about south and central America. That’s it. OK, not quite it. In his next sentence he “proves” that Woody is all wet regarding the cost of removing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels with that paragon of scientific journals (you know, the one that York always champions) THE … again… ready… here it comes…. a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL…. Well, I’m sure castigated. Gawrsh as Goofy would say!

Well, the editorial does in fact say that removing CO2 would only be “$1.00 per ton” Only one problem, and that is the number of tons produced worldwide in a ten year period from 1994 through 2003 (and we are using those figures because that is what we will have to pay over the next 10 years if we start on Jan. 1, 2006… let’s see… it’s about 465,528.69 MILLION METRIC TONNES at one dollar per ton (and remember, a metric tonne weighs 2, 200 pounds whereas a ton weighs only 2000 pounds, so a metric ton is about 10% larger. Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Paul’s parting comment is “If you can't get the truth behind them they just make things up.” Paul, I propose that reducing the cost to only one ton and hiding the total number of tons is making things up.

But you see, radical out in left field lefties like Paul and Mark are all about that; scare, fear mongering and popular pablum; about purporting theory as fact (actually, to the amusement of all and sundry, that fellow York actually said "A theory in science is indeed fact." I'm surprised he graduated with that kind of thinking... all of my professors would have flunked me if I held that view. Then again, I went to a real university. and have more than 60 graduate hours with a 3.75 GPA, I'm a member of a national honor society as well. York on the other hand, maintained that grades of well, mediocre at best ) and their proposed solutions are the only hope of mankind. Well, remember global winter, the next ice age, how silicone implants caused all kinds of medical problems, how electric transmission lines caused cancer and other dire threats from magnetic currents (which is all the rage now, wearing magnets that is), how cell phones would give you brain tumors in a relatively short time… all debunked, but all part of the fear mongering and the cost of finding out that it was fear mongering was staggering. Dow Corning went bankrupt and spent over 3 billion dollars for the privilege, we spent well over 25 billion on powerline research, money that could have helped an awful lot of kids who were hungry, or a lot of treatment for aids victims in Africa or even on honest climate research. Reality based community indeed.

Update: Some of my readers have gone to leave comments at York's site. He banned them! Bwahahahaha!!! Oh Mark, you are such a dweeb!

Posted by GM Roper at November 12, 2005 09:44 PM | TrackBack

Bravo! As usual very selective quoting, which is a wingnut staple. No, make that "neccessity." When you lie, well, what is left out is key. You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101.

Randy's and mine are solid. Yours on the other hand are biased wingerville paid for shills by naysaying industry lobbyists. How pathetic.

The colateral field I have is in Environmental Biology and the 18 unit speculation is actually 85. it's on my transcript. I'm a GS-5 professional series fishery biologist just finished a stint with the BLM. Look it up. Right wing Idaho hired me. I guess you have no influence there huh Roper?

What you've composed here is called an ad hominem circumstantial. Well it failed, because of context and truth. You had little of either. Just the grain of truth necessary for your diatribe. Keep running coward. That's your style.

Those reviews, hardly literary legends. Amateurs like you two.

Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 10:32 PM

And one final thing you lying sack of fertilizer. You deleted nothing from me stronger than the word "Ass." This inference you keep making that I cussed you out and violated your pious virgin ears is a bald faced lie.

Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 10:41 PM

York, you have turned on moderation and effectively banned a number of my friends who went to your blog to leave comments. Yet, you feel free to come here and say anything you want, without a single backup by way of argument other than pointing to realclimate. I'm sure, when those folk see you for your behavior, they will ban you too. as for your "ad hominim circumstantial" (which I noticed you misused at XLRQ also) please note this:

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.
I'm not arguing that you are a GW proponent because of your bias, I'm arguing that you haven't got a clue, can't argue effectively and fall back on threats (wanna get a hold of my neck little boy?) vile language (I've settled that one as far as I can see... sack of fertilizer indeed!). If you can come up with some cogent reasons for believing in GW, back it up with research that you have found on your own rather than babble using the folk at Realclimate, I'd be happy to listen to you. Until then, go away. Go far away.

Posted by GM at November 12, 2005 11:26 PM

York --

Only a coward deletes non-profane, qualified comments because he disagrees with their content.

You are just like the rest of the pathetic, whiny little communist losers of the left, you feel it's okay to bray your trollish, anemically reasoned comments(hell, every point you make to try to justify the ignorance behind your alleged beliefs is anemic) at other blogs, but the minute anyone disagrees with you at your own blog, you delete their comments.

You, sir, are an inconsequential organism of a calibre well beneath plankton.

Posted by Seth at November 12, 2005 11:31 PM

GM&Woody, is that a threat that marky-warky-puddin-head posted somewhere? The bit where he says he would get his hands around someone's throat?

Wow. He should be more careful than to post threats online....especially when a simple google search shows where his dumbass lives in Sunland, Ca.

You know what? I am only about half an hour away from Sunland. In fact, I have friends that live there in Sunland, and a nice drive over to visit my friends would be a great way to spend a day.

Mayeb I should stop by Mark's and bring him a nice Hallmark Greeting card to celebrate the upcoming season of peace and forgiveness eh?

After all, isn't part of the reason for the season to remember the lessons that Jesus taught? And Jesus did teach us to turn the other cheek.

Mark? Buddy? Wanna get together for some coffee? Oh wait....HOT drinks might contribute to global warming.

How about some ice tea?

Dammit. Not only does making ice cause global warming, but if we selfishly use that ice we take away it's ability to counter some of that global warming.

Mark? Wanna meet for a room temperature glass of some environmentallly friendly liquid refreshment?

Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 01:50 AM

Now, guys, be nice. Nobody else will play with the pathetic little creature, so he's got to come here to display his ignorance. He's got nowhere else to go, poor thing.

My suggestion would to be to toss it a scrap occasionally for entertainment value, but to otherwise ignore it and leave it to wallow in its irrelevance.

But then, of course, this isn't the sort of... creature... I would allow in my house, either. I'd keep it chained up outside, so it wouldn't soil the carpet.

-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat

Posted by Romeocat at November 13, 2005 06:29 AM

Some things never change.

In elementary school when someone yelled "FIGHT!", nearly everyone dropped what they were doing and ran to watch. I must admit to having retained a certain unwholesome interest in confrontations - although my interest has migrated from fisticuffs to verbal pugilism (how sophisticated, eh?).

I am especially pleased to see that my guy is winning - BIG.

Posted by too many steves at November 13, 2005 07:06 AM

York: "You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101.

Randy's and mine are solid. Yours on the other hand are biased wingerville paid for shills by naysaying industry lobbyists. How pathetic."

Lets parse this bon mot for it's meaning. First York says qualifications are immaterial to his sources and that is (apparantly) from journalism 101. Then, he contradicts himself and says his are solid while mine are biased and paid for in wingerville.

Is York saying his credentials are solid or his sources are solid? If it's his sources, he is only producing sources material of THEORY stating that some of the information are facts and that is true, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for example(it has gone up from 270 ppm to 370 ppm a tiny, tiny almost infitesimal amount but that is the subject of another post) on the other hand, it is the EFFECT that we are talking about and that, on his part, is speculative theory and while it may be proven eventually (though all inidcations are that it won't) it is still theory. If he is saying his credentials are solid.. well, he did graduate from CSUN....

Posted by GM at November 13, 2005 07:23 AM

"York: "You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101."

Ah, so that explains why you couldnt distinguish between theory and fact. You "education" is in journalism. I guess my previous point was indeed correct that "Mark York was never taught scientific principles, or was asleep the day the subject was taught"

Posted by M Harn at November 13, 2005 09:45 AM

Is that a theat Kender? Because I've saved it for future reference. If you can't handle opposing arguments then go back to the cave, no one's forcing you to read my posts.

As for rejecting mine and Randy's evidence I'd say you have to. Realclimate; NASA; Union of Conmcerned scientists and a host of others say you are wrong. Flat-out wrong. So what do you do? Discredit the source. Well that doesn't fly on merit. They aren't biased, they're real. Here's the real kicker: your sources are. They're paid for shills and we've documented that FACT. Ignore if you must.

Deriding a my resume is the last refuge of a scoundrel just like your faux patriotism, and is indeed an ad hominem circumstantial. It says I have a vanity press book so I couldn't know anything, yet I work for the Bush administration in science-- environmental science. How could this be? I'm not going to continually refute the same fallacies over and over with people claiming I'm biased, or visitors calling me an idiot for being valid.

Saying you feel like ringing someone's neck is different than claiming to come to their house for an unfriendly visit. Remember that because the LAPD will be very interested should that happen.

Do yourself a favor: call off the hounds.

Posted by Mark York at November 13, 2005 10:36 AM

No puddin' head, that wasn't a threat. The line you wrote about breaking someone's neck is a threat.

Ididn't say anything about your sources. I amteasing you about the whole GW thing. As for your credentials? Yes, you have credentials. Whether they are valid in the GW arena is another matter entirely. CSUN is such a prestigiuous school.

BTW, I have been reading excerpts from your "books", and I must say, my GF is an editor and here is her opinion: You need an editor, a better story, some writing skills and a subject matter that people will care enough to read about".

I notice that you keep dissent off of your site. That's fine. I tried to be civil over there, but you would have none of it. For a man that averages about 40 hits a day one would think that any visitors you would have stop by would be treated with some amount of hospitality.

Let me tell you. You are a sad little man, with a big bulbous head and a receding hairline, but that is a good thing, as it will give you a more aerodynamic outline and make trudging through the hills in search of endangered fish easier, because twigs wont get stuck in the hair on your big bulbous head.

Face it puddin head. Your "books" suck, your "blog" sucks, your "career" sucks and YOU suck. You are living a sad little life, wailing against the big bad BusHalliburton machine, never realizing that the policies you wish for would destroy your country and your way of life.

Now, I never said I was coming over for an unfriendly visit. In fact, I said I was gonna bring you a hallmark card, and maybe go out for some coffee.....but nooooooo. Your paranoid delusions make everything out to be a threat.

Call the LAPD that they have solved all crime in LA I am sure they will be happy to rush right over and handle yoru paranoid delusions....maybe they will get you a room and some meds.

Last note. We aren't the hounds puddin head. If anything, we are the attack dawgs.

Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 11:07 AM

"a better story, some writing skills and a subject matter that people will care enough to read about"."

Well that settles it. Your girl friend, as everyone surely knows, at least in some circles, is the final literary authority. Whatever. Amateurs amateurs amateurs. My sources as any journalist and scientist will verify are impeccable, as is my hairline, so this sort of thing is just a sad ad hominen. Pardon me if I don't interpret your Hallmark as friendly.

And from what I can tell all of your blogs suck, you're a movie grunt, not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a SAG member myself, and are an unusually combative ideologue. Nothing unique about that. Stay home.

Like GM says of me, you came and insulted me with foul language right off. That's a bad start, so say goodnight, this party's over.

Posted by Mark York at November 13, 2005 12:07 PM

I think York is a hoot. He ot only is incapable of rational argument, check this out: On his blog I state his name as Yorky and castigate him for "banning" people when he gripes about being banned so often. In the very next comment York starts off with "Use my real name you friggin snake."

Up above however, he doesn't call me Roper or GM or GM Roper, he calls me a "And one final thing you lying sack of fertilizer." In a prior comment, he calls me "Rope-a-dope..." and that doesn't even include his "friggin snake" comment.

In the real world, as opposed to the one inhabited by York, we call that hypocracy. York, can you say HY-PO-CRITE?

Posted by gmroper at November 13, 2005 01:08 PM

Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source” and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

First of all don't call me Paul. That's my last name. You know my first name. I have never referred to you as anythoing other than GM or Woody.

You referenced the National Center for Public Policy Research and who is their president for The Science & Environmental Policy Project and their source on global warming: S. Fred Singer, so you did reference him. If you'd dug a little deeper you'd have found that out. Please don't blame me for having done so.

As for my qualifications, hey I never claimed to be an expert. I'll gladly defer to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Institute of Physics, The Air & Waste Management Association, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and any number of other credible organizations on the subject. You're welcome to stick with your right-wing think tanks and your purchased experts (S. Fred Singer), or Woody who claimed tthe following on my blog:

(In fact, something I've never revealed, is that I once had a short science show on educational television.)

One wonders why someone would "never reveal" such a relevant fact or make the claim without supplying anything in the way of proof.

One wonders why people who call themselves conservatives show such contempt for those who want to conserve environment. Richard Nixon (who created the EPA) and Teddy Roosevelt are probably spinning in their graves as I write this.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 01:37 PM

Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Amortized over the course of ten years it's not that much. It's $1,828 per per person based on a population of 280,000,000 over the course of ten years totaling $15 per person.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 02:58 PM

That's $15 per person per month for ten years.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 03:11 PM

Thank you GM for trolling these boobs so skillfully. It is amusing to watch.

Please please tell me they are not registered Democrats.

Posted by The Ugly American at November 13, 2005 06:27 PM

They should start a band:

"Paul-York and the Bolsheviks"

Posted by Seth at November 13, 2005 09:23 PM

Actually puddin head, my GF is a fine editor, and my prose bugs her to death, but I won't let her touch it, as it then loses my flavor.

As for movie grunt? Yeah...hhmm...I was listed as a grip once....other than that it has been horse wrangler, stunt coordinator and associate producer....but only because I secured the costuming, extra's, location, props, set painters, SFX guys and played go between with the crew and location owners. I only was given grip because I helped load the truck when we wrapped.

Your credentials as a scientist SUCK MELONHEAD!!!! CSUN SUCKS....I have known too many lib dolts that have gone there, and still do, as I live about 3 miles from that sucky assed campus.

Your "credentials" as a "journalist", not to mention a "writer" are even worse, and your book, (the excerpt I read, I wouldn't buy it to wipe my a-- with) was the most boring thing I have read since I found directions on using laquer and was bored enough to read them. At least the directions were written by a PROFESSIONAL!!!

I didn't start out insulting you, melon head, but now that I have started, you gutter-slug, it is kinda' fun. I know that you will read this, and won't allow comments at your blog, so I wont leave you unkind words there, Quark, but I will leave them here, knowing that I am pissing you off.

How do you see through those beady little eyes anyway? Is there any chance that you will go back to alaska to chain yourself to a bull dozer when they start to rip up anwr? Boy, I bet you just cry in your granola over that don't ya nature boy?

All those caribou out there wailing in the cold north wind while big effin machines tear up the earth. I hear caribou is good eating. Maybe I should call my congressman and have 'em toss in a rider so the oil workers can get special dispensation to go hunting on their off time eh?

OKokokok.......I'm done....for the moment anyway puddin head. Well, almost done.

Have you considered renting out that enormous cranium for a billboard? You could probably fit two or maybe three ads on your forehead alone., I'm done.

But if you do rent out that giant scully your totin around, I want ten percent for giving you the idea. For twenty percent I'll even secure the ads.

Oh...alomst forgot. You get a pitiful 40 hits a should be thanking GM and Woody for bringing you traffic. I have never seen a site with so few hits actually put up google may as well beg at that point.

Posted by kender at November 14, 2005 01:02 AM

York isn't worth the time to read -- too few ideas or proposals.

I suggest you note that in the future -- though no future mentions may be best.

I believe in CO2 increases; a gas tax should be instituted to stabilize the prices, and the price increases, and encourage different behavior. The first 10 cents/gal should go for Katrina/ Wilma/ Fed disaster relief/ recovery.

Posted by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 14, 2005 06:51 AM

Am I a liar or is Randy Paul a psycho?

Randy Paul wrote in response to "...I once had a short science show on educational television.: "One wonders why someone would 'never reveal' such a relevant fact or make the claim without supplying anything in the way of proof."

Posted by Woody at November 14, 2005 10:11 AM

Time for Cooler Heads

As I went through this thread, I realized that Civil Truth was staying out of the fray and, thereby, showing good sense. As I went futher into the Global Warming entry two down, I noted Civil Truth's comments about bringing some civility (appropriately) back to the discussions. He wrote, "The Golden Rule is still a good law to follow." While I'm speaking for myself, I agree with that and with him, and I suspect that G.M. agrees, also.

We didn't start the attacks. We were attacked ourselves, in fact blindsided. and defended ourselves rather than let untruths go unanwered. Calling me a liar doesn't prove global warming claims by the left. In light of that and other false claims, I don't consider our responses to this point inappropriate.

I genuinely appreciate everyone who came to the defense of G.M. and myself and who exposed the other side and their weak arguments. Your support is heart warming. Also, I realize that some of the arguing was in good fun, even if some of it was not. In any event, now that the points have been made, it may be time to move along to more constructive commentaries.

However, this doesn't preclude us from discussing the merits for or against global warming--and that ought to continue as part of our learning process.

I don't expect Randy Paul or Mark York to agree to be civil, maybe they will; but, we can rise above them and not let them drag us further into their mire--and, possibly, just possibly, we can pull them up, too.

It's been interesting and enlightening, and maybe a little humorous, but I'm going to try to follow the advice that Civil Truth offered. It is not only right, but will certainly make for more educational and interesting reading.

Thanks again to everyone for supporting us and for being part of our cyber-family.

Posted by Woody at November 14, 2005 10:59 AM

You should see Al Gores latest rant about global warming as being worse than terrorism.

Posted by rick at November 14, 2005 04:20 PM


Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 04:59 PM

2nd test with security code only

Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 05:01 PM

test with security code and authentication via type key

Hey, is this some kind of coded spam?


Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 05:04 PM

You know Woody, you got me to thinking.

I enjoy argument for argument's sake, in some ways similar to how some people enjoy playing cards. I don't take it personally, even when I feel that I've lost the argument. My life doesn't depend on winning and losing, and the topic isn't usually materially affected by the outcome of the argument. In sum, arguing is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Which is to say that I feel some pity toward those whose sense of self worth and life purpose (apparently) is determined by their opinions and positons on the issues of the day.

How else would you interpret the illogical, vitriolic, and profane rantings of these folk?

Posted by too many steves at November 14, 2005 07:43 PM

Too many steves, you made me think about why we do this. I, too, enjoy the intellectual stimulation of taking different sides of issues and discussing them. As is the case here, it's unlikely that minds are changed, but occasionally I will learn something different and modify my views, which is another benefit.

However, like the card game analogy that you offered, some people take it too seriously and throw their cards, accuse the other side of cheating, and turn over the card table. This isn't important enough to do that and it discourages the learning process. In school, the kids who disrupted the class got sent to the principal's office. You would have hoped that everyone would have grown above that.

I quit visiting some sites because they were contentious. We never want anyone to stop visiting here for that reason. All sides are welcome and encouraged to comment. All we ask is civility in the exchanges.

Posted by Woody at November 15, 2005 08:34 AM

Oppose Harry Reid

Christians Against Leftist Heresy


I Stand With Piglet, How About You?

Reject The UN
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


101st Fighting Keyboardists

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Naked Bloggers

Improper Blogs

Milblogs I Read

The Texas Connection
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

American Conservative

The Wide Awakes


< TR>
AgainstTerrorism 1.jpg
[ Prev || Next || Prev 5 || Next 5]
[Rand || List || Stats || Join]

Open Tracback Providers

No PC Blogroll

Blogs For Bush

My Technorati Profile
Major Media Links

Grab A Button
If you would like to link to GM's Corner, feel free to grab one of the following buttons. (Remember to save the image to your own website).

Whimsical Creations by GM Roper
My Store

Technorati search

Fight Spam! Click Here!
YCOP Blogs

The Alliance
"GM's Corner is a Blogger's
Blog, and then some!"
-----Glenn Reynolds

Coalition Against Illegal Immigration

Southern Blog Federation

Kim Komando, America's Digital Goddess
Powered by:
Movable Type 2.64

Template by:

Design by:

Hosted by: