Eight more deaths in British Columbia from H1N1. Not a stellar day for Mark Griswold.
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Gee! I am glad I had my H1N1 shot this last Monday!!
This news couldn’t be better for Mark Griswold. It “proves” Canadian socialized medicine doesn’t work, just as East Anglia University’s stolen e-mails “prove” climate change isn’t real.
Good try at equivalence Roger Dumb Bunny but that’s not what the released emails prove. Try again.
Puddy @ # 3:
Nope.
1. Editors of academic journals previously published numerous contrarian studies (or simply anomolous results) in a genuine attempt to be un-biased and allow peer review.
2. Industries with a vested interest in rebutting the consensus of the scientific community, along with their wingnut politicans and crackpots, then mis-characterized the publication of the studies as being “proof” that global warming didn’t exist, or even further that such studies were the official position of the university or publication which consented to publish the study.
3. When that happens repeatedly, there will be eventual push-back from the academic community in the form of an unwilliness to cooperate in being abused in such a fashion.
That’s all it proves.
Continuing….
For example, two weeks ago I was in a church service where the speaker announced that the e-mails proved that global warming didn’t exist.
Now, there is no way that the e-mails said any such thing. They were relying upon people to only know that there was something controversial about the e-mails, without knowing the contents.
Again, it’s making a giant leap from “evidence” to “desired conclusion” without the benefit of logic in between.
Goebbels Rabbit is just trying to deflect your attention away from the fact that data was destroyed, people lied, and the whole thing is a sham.
so the white house party crashers, who are noe exposed as cheaters and low lifes, are jewish. what a fucking surprise. does it ever end?
So this is awesome!
Al Franken introduces legislation that overseas military contractors can’t force potential employees to agree to not sue if they are raped by other employees. (Google Dawn Lemon) Republicans voted No in lockstep. Republicans now complain that the vote should not be used to prove that they are “soft on rape.”
That’s rich.
O.K. You’re not soft on rape. But you are far more concerned with the profits of defense contractors than rape victims rights.
Manofthefools
Where did you get that? Salahi – Jewish?
rhp6033: The emails prove a few things. Al Gore’s the debate is over – AIN’T OVER
1) Climate Change “Peer Reviewed” calls is a sham. These “professors and scientists” even said they would change peer reviewing definitions.
2) Data manipulation was rampant. So rampant Jones and Mann are being investigated
3) IPCC “relied” on this “data”
4) IPCC anti-report comments were rejected out of hand
5) These “professors and scientists” labeled their opponents choice names
6) These “professors and scientists” purposely hid data from FOIRs.
7) The big one… The original data was chucked. Why?
That’s what the emails prove!
Has Tim Eyman moved to Pennsylvania?
It seems somebody is trying again to get casinos built near to the Gettysburg battlefield. A proposal to do that was defeated a couple of years ago, but it has been resurrected again.
If the promoters promise that the tax revenues from the casinos would eliminate property taxes, then start looking for Eyman – he’s probably lurking nearby.
@3 You’re right, the stolen (not “released”) e-mails don’t prove that. They don’t prove anything.
Atlantic magazine did a cover story about “prosperity gospel” evangelists entitled “How Preachers Are Spreading A Gospel of Debt.” Barron’s magazine said,
“The article describes the rise of a new breed of churches that preach the gospel of prosperity …. It profiles one pastor who preaches this gospel — who also was a lending officer for a mortgage company that trafficked in subprime loans. To many of his parishioners, this pastor doubled as a financial as well as a spiritual adviser ….”
(Barron’s, Nov. 30, 2009, p. 32)
@9
his father immigrated from israel. ipso facto.
@6 None of which proves the planet isn’t getting warmer. On the other hand, if you look at photos of North Cascades alpine glaciers from 30 years ago and compare them to photos of the same glaciers taken within the last couple of years, that does clearly and irrefutably prove the climate is getting warmer.
@7 See #13.
@8 “Republicans now complain that the vote should not be used to prove that they are “soft on rape.””
Do Republicans prefer that we use Mike Huckabee’s release of Wayne Dumond as proof they’re soft on rape?
@10 See #15. Click on link below. The debate is over.
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaci.....arison.htm
Moron@12 view the facts in #10.
A “moron” is someone who doesn’t know the difference between “fact” and “opinion.” E.g., cf. #10 and #18.
@13
Funny that. At some point in mid-2000 I was invited to a busines owner/entrepreneur dinner at a chi-chi L.A. steak house. I knew I had been suckered when I walked in. It was a higher end version of a time-share sales pitch. I bring it up because the Keynote speaker was a Baptist minister who talked about his faith in Christ. Then he busted out…
“God wants us to be rich, and I can help you get rich…”
The door checker chased me down as I left my half-eaten dinner behind. “Sir, where are you going.”
“If you’re boy up there has read the New Testament, he obviously didn’t get it.”
@14
I thought the mother was the automatic ticket to the tribe.
Funny but Puddy don’t remember Roger Dumb Bunny reacting to black preachers promoting Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm’s health care plan from the pulpit. Probably one of those posts Roger Dumb Bunny skipped becuz the facts didn’t support some dumb hypothesis.
@23
False equivalences Puddy.
If a preacher promoting the health care plan from the pulpit was also a general practitioner who stood to benefit financially from HCR you’d have a point.
Preaching the gospel of wealth while also serving as the professional financial adviser of parishioners is a conflict of interest.
(“I didn’t say they were the same. Fool. I just pointed out that they were equivillent in my mind but not really the same.” Just saving you some time and keyboard work Pud…)
Man that checksaid is really dumb.
My ASS.
We all know Dummocrapts support abortion; so how can a black preacher who is sworn to protect life support a plan with abortion all over it? We all know what Henry Nostilitus Waxman is pro-abortion.
So much for that False equivalence argument!
Oh checksaid…
Puddy forgot to say…
SEEEEEEEEE YA!
So, here’s GBS BEFORE Obama’s Afghanistan speech:
@83 I guarantee that after President Obama’s speech there will be a positive move up in his approval ratings in how he’s “handling the war.”
http://horsesass.org/?p=22616#comments
Positive? Well, the poll numbers have yet to emerge – though, I wouldn’t hold my breath – but the reaction from the liberal side of Obama’s base has been anything but positive:
Liberals Distance Themselves From the President
“Barack Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy has opened the biggest divide yet between the Democratic president and the liberal base that swept him into office.
“Within hours of the announcement, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers and candidates began seeking to distance themselves from the president, denouncing the cost of sending more troops, the corruption of the Afghan government, and the lack of emphasis on attacking al Qaeda in Pakistan, rather than simply stabilizing Afghanistan.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....74065.html
For that matter, the reaction from the right has also been less than stellar.
If anyone thinks things will improve for the administration going forward as the troops being shipping out and the casualty numbers begin shooting up, they’re living on a different planet.
False equivalences again Puddy.
A bill that doesn’t strip all funding from an institution that chooses to exercise its own judgment regarding abortion ISN’T the same as supporting abortion.
If said legislation contained laguage that would require ALL HMOs, PPO’s and Medical Care Facilities to perform abortions in order to qualify for federal funds (I really have no problem with Catholic Health Care facilities choosing not to perform procedures) then you’d have a point.
Thanks for deflecting the part where black preachers somehow benefit financially from advocating for health care reform.
(“I didn’t HAVE to talk about a financial relationship, fool! You’re the dummy who brought up conflict of interest. HA HA HA HA HA HA” I can shift from one red herring to another all I want. It’s an open thread! Juvenile nickname of some democrat with nothing to do with the current topic is your hero. He thinks like you.” Hell, I think I could write for you and no one would know the difference. You’re like the Ramones. 120 songs, one rhythm track, three chords.)
@21 Yea, verily, I sayeth unto thee, behold the following:
“In June, the Supreme Court ruled that state attorneys general had the authority to sue national banks for predatory lending. … One theme emerging in these suits is how banks teamed up with pastors to win over new customers for subprime loans.
“Beth Jacobson is a star witness for the City of Baltimore’s recent suit against Wells Fargo. Jacobson was a top loan officer in the bank’s subprime division …. The idea of reaching out to churches took off quickly, Jacobson recalls. The branch managers figured pastors had a lot of influence with their parishioners and could give the loan officers credibility and new customers. … The plan was to send officers to guest-speak at church-sponsored ‘wealth-building seminars’ …. They would tell pastors that for every person who took out a mortgage, $350 would be donated to the church ….” [emphasis added]
— The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc.....ity-gospel
Once again EPIC FAIL checksaid… The date was September 2009 checksaid, that is before the Pelosi health care bill was finalized. At the time there was no anti-abortion pill in the House bill and Waxman was promoting abortion support.
You are chronologically challenged too. Sad so sad!
That article also offers insight into the mentality behind these religions:
“It is not all that surprising that the prosperity gospel persists despite its obvious failure to pay off. Much of popular religion these days is characterized by a vast gap between aspirations and reality. Few of Sarah Palin’s religious compatriots were shocked by her messy family life, because they’ve grown used to the paradoxes; some of the most socially conservative evangelical churches also have extremely high rates of teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, and divorce. …
“The unpleasant reality — an inadequate paycheck, a pregnant daughter, a recession — is invisible. It’s your … willing blindness to even the most hopeless-seeming circumstances, that makes you a certain kind of modern Christian …. There is … a faith that, for all its seeming confidence, hints at desperation, at circumstances gone so far wrong that they can only be made right by a sudden, unexpected jackpot.”
[Ibid.; emphases added.]
Ummm Roger…
It was Wells Fargo going into the inner city and using black pastors,
“”Wells Fargo, Ms. Jacobson said in an interview, saw the black community as fertile ground for subprime mortgages, as working-class blacks were hungry to be a part of the nation’s home-owning mania. Loan officers, she said, pushed customers who could have qualified for prime loans into subprime mortgages. Another loan officer stated in an affidavit filed last week that employees had referred to blacks as “mud people” and to subprime lending as “ghetto loans.””
Puddy brought this up about how whitey preyed on my peeps this way. You can ask ylb arschloch for the original PuddyPost on this Roger Dumb Bunny. You should pay attention to Puddy. Puddy always brings up issues relevant to blacks on HA Libtardos. Sometimes DUmmy’s has interesting stuff.
Clemmons Planned More Killings
“According to court documents released Wednesday, suspected police killer Maurice Clemmons told friends and family over Thanksgiving dinner, ‘he planned to kill cops, he planned to kill children at a school, and he planned to kill as many people as he could in an intersection,’ according to KING 5 News.
http://www.king5.com/news/More.....29032.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This guy told his family and friends that he was going to kill cops, shoot up a school, and commit mass murder in the streets. I can see where they might blow that off as “crazy talk” — until he went out and murdered four cops in cold blood. Yet, instead of turning him in, they helped him escape, knowing what he was likely to do if he wasn’t caught.
Puddy, you keep using that words EPIC FAIL. I do not think it means what you think it means. (read with a Spanish Accent and Mandy Patinkin cadence…)
Sooooo….Preachers advocating for some general health care plan that isn’t finalized and at present has no wording regarding pro or anti abortion ‘CAUSE WORDING DOESN’T F’ING EXIST YET means the preachers are supporting a bill that supports abortion?
I hear the health care bill at some point in the future may, if a single representative has his way, include a provision that eliminates funding for skin cancer treatment for pasty white guys. Well, I can’t support that at all. It may some day, possibly, just maybe, if a Representative gets the language he wants inserted, be something I don’t support so it is my moral obligation to stop supporting it right this moment for fear of the future. The soothsayer told me, “Beware the ides of March.”
Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Oh wait, obviously you don’t realize how stupid you sound. You keep spouting off.
(“Uhhh, just ask someone else for my original post on this ’cause I’m too lazy to link. Just trust me, it was epic. You FAIL. And another thing, Feinstein loves defense contractors. There goes your argument! You really are dumb.)
Gregoire To Arkansas: Screw You
KING 5 News reports that Gov. Gregoire has notified Arkansas officials that Washington will not longer accept their parolees because they failed to honor their agreement with Washington governing parole violations.
Their response? “KING 5 News asked officials in Arkansas for a response. They sent us a one line e-mail that said they didn’t know what we were talking about and they have no response.”
http://www.king5.com/news/Gove.....41957.html
And another business
gurufraud goes down.Reciprocity …
According to KING 5 News, “Currently, Washington state’s Department of Corrections is supervising 2527 offenders from other states under the Interstate Compact. There are 1,046 offenders from Washington state being supervised in other states under the same agreement.”
[same link as above]
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Looks to me like we’re being taken advantage of. Maybe the governor should order the Greyhound bus depot closed to disembarking passengers from other states.
@33
Considering the guy’s past, I would have taken him seriously. I don’t understand the actions of the people around him at all.
@25 We also know who’s first in line at the abortion clinic, don’t we?
@27 So, do you support the President’s decision, or are you an appeasement monkey?
@32 “It was Wells Fargo going into the inner city and using black pastors, …”
Hmmm, that wouldn’t be you, would it puddy? After all, you’ve told us what a great job you have, and you’re a might preachy type, and you continually grasp at straws … I’m just sayin’, all the ingredients appear to be there.
@38 The getaway driver was a convicted murderer paroled from Arkansas.
If Huckabee shows his face around here pandhandling for votes would someone please put him on a bus back to Arkansas.
@25
Abortion has been around since at least the time of Cleopatra, do you think if you don’t fund it or make it illegal it will go away?
@29, etc…
“Who would Jesus scam?”
@8 At this rate, the folks at The Onion might as well simply close up shop. Reality keeps getting crazier than any satire.
@8
This needs to get more media coverage. You misspelled the last name it’s: Dawn Leamon.
The Jobs Summit is a real joke!
Obama fails to invite the Chamber of Commerce or the National Federation of Independent Businesses which represent those who actual CREATE Small Business jobs.
Obama believes the Government is the key job creator. Therein lies a huge problem.
Obama will continue to plunge in polls as he loses more & more small business owners AND their employees.
2010 & 2012 just keep getting more fuel from Obam-Mao’s actions.
Here is the Obama speech bounce.
The guy has made sooooo many speeches and said so little & been sooooo leadership void that he is wearing out his messiahship.
30% is a pretty low number 10 months into an Admistration where the expectations were soooooooooooooooo high.
Typical Leftist Response–
Barbara Boxer wants to focus on e-mail theft rather than if Climate Data is conjured & rigged up!!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....inal-probe
Wow..
Someone holds the Public Funded Klimate Kzars accountable on an issue we are poised to spend trillions taking on…and Boxer wants to stop komputer hacking??!!
Therein lies the problem.
And hey, even Jon Stewart went after the phoney data which ABC, NBC and CBS turned a blind eye!
@1); ooops, Once again Puddy is listening to right wingnuts interpretations that have no basis in reality:
1. Puddy says:
Umm, no you are just plain wrong here – the scientists were complaining about letting in a few papers by industry hacks (in the name of inclusion) that were not scientifically worthy – instead they suppported true peer review.
2.
Umm, no. No one is disputing the data from NOAA or the data that the IPCC used tht definitively show global warming. And some data needed to be modified due to an error in translating the reporting of that data (did you already forget that I posted on that?)
WRONG! You are either misled, misinformed or just plain stupid on this.
Yeah, they could not understand how industry hacks could be so corrupt and stupid….guys like S. Fred Singer, who are outdated and in the pocket of the Petroleum industry and the tobacco industry.
Same hacks, same corruption same stupid arguments…cigarettes are completely safe! The tobacco industry execs told this to congress and they had “their” scientists too!
Only the very gullible and the very stupid believe those arguments …..which are you Puddy?
@50: Klynical ….wow, every day you amaze me with your stupidity.
thanks.
Now I know that some primates are smarter than some humans.
@49: And the percent that liked Bush after 8 years…..hahahha.
You are truly a moron. Bush makes the messes and the Democrats have to clean them up. Bush dithers for 6 years in Afghanistan and invades the wrong country….yet an idiot like Klynical says nothing and supports him.
Thanks for the laughs Klynical…I love how idiots like you try to justify the indefensible.
checksaid… Do you see how stupid you write…?
The black preachers were advocating a human position in the bill polar opposite of their chosen life profession. These COGIC preachers were blindly backing Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm without reading the bill because he said abortion wasn’t there. Just like most in Congress on YOUR SIDE. Abortion support was in the bill last September and the Democratics admitted it in October. This lost on you checksaid, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, as Moronic Mindless Memory Malady runs strong in you!
Keep da faith in Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm. The world sees him as weak. See Stratfor!
@ 51
Puddy’s peer review argument is particularly ironic given the troubles that advocates of intelligent design have had in getting their stuff published. Wingnuts would love to alter the peer review process if they could in order to allow more of their favored junk science to get published.
But, what are the actual facts here? We have a couple of scientists threatening to alter the peer review process. We have little evidence for why they wanted to alter the review process and absolutely no evidence that they even tried to alter the process let alone succeeded.
Nevertheless, in Puddy’s mind, this mere threat is proof that the peer review process is fatally flawed. Go figure.
Michael,
Tom Petters, was way way more friendly to Democratics in his political contributions. That’s the first thing Puddy looked for Michael as it was missing in the article. Jim Oberstar (Democratic) loved his money. Oberstar has been entrenched in Congress since 1975. Amy Klobuchar loves his money too. Amy has EMILY’s list support.
He was a John Deadwards jockstrap just like ylb arschloch. That should tell you much.
@55: Yup – the anti-science crowd is at it again….oh NO! Scientists called the industry hacks names….OH MY GAWD! therefore, all climate change is wrong….
What a bunch of idiots on the right and their “controversy”……as if this somehow negates all the published evidence…it is just more grasping at straws by the politcally motivated and scientifically challenged right wing.
You know that is the case when a nutball like Imhoff is involved…..
Wrong again Dumb Bunny. Me grasping at straws? You forget Cuyahoga County. You Forget Haiti. You forgot Stafford County. You forget “IF”. You forget your “this is how it works” plagiarisms from other web sites or other peeps books. Need to see more of your straw grasping forgetfulness? And you accuse Puddy of straw grasping? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Damn that’s so funny Roger Dumb Bunny. SMACK SMACK SMACK on your “cottontail”.
Come on Roger Dumb Bunny… Puddy has exposed your sorry ASS lately and it’s painful! So you are attacking Puddy. That’s fine Roger Dumb Bunny. That’s all you have. rhp6033 has supplanted you as a better historical poster who posts much more of his own material without the political bullshit posturing of your posts.
pronoun mode. I’m impressed by some of rhp6033’s historical recollections. His posts are not biased as much as your shitty pellets Roger Dumb Bunny when I read them. It’s very refreshing to see clearly written historical references vs. the bullshit you slew here Roger Dumb Bunny. Most HA Libtardos are historical idiots. That’s why I value check your crap now. It’s easy when you’ve read various web site positions for and against. Remember Roger Dumb Bunny I remember much of what I read vs moronic mindless memory malady moby trolls such as yourself.
/pronoun /snark
More Don Joe Bullshit. It was more than a couple of scientists. Many more were complicit in this coverup and the emails are showing it. You can easily find the data. James Hanson was caught fudging the numbers last fall. SMACK. We know from the emails they BLOCKED their antagonist papers. There was no threats to block. They blocked them. That’s why George Monbiot is pissed at the process. He was Climate Change biggest jockstraps who is shocked SHOCKED over the crap these “professors and scientists” pulled.
So to correctnotright and Don Joe… If your Peer review point is so salient, why are Phil Jones and Michael Mann under investigation now? They blocked their opponents, stopped any Freedom of Information Requests and someone threw away all the original temperature data. How appropriate to cover your tracks when massaging the data. Your house of cards is falling down fools!
Oops before the time ends… This is about money plain and simple. Yeah and bogus carbon credits too. Follow the money and see who will profit from the “green revolution”!!!!!!
Yeah Jack Cafferty (you know Darryl’s bud) went on CNN and discussed the ClimateGate fiasco. So the libtardo MSM is starting to recognize this has legs.
@56
Yep!
I used to like the guy and believed what he said. It’s nice to see that the justice system still works.
Huckabee and his rapist. Palin charging victims for rape kits, Republican senators lining up against Senator Al Franken’s anti-rape ammendment. Republicans are obviously intent on being the pro-rape party.
Any chance I can see the original data?
HAHAHAHAHA
The believers of man-madeup-global-warming destroyed the data.
With no facts, the debate is now over.
Yes Ms Boxer is really interested in those emails…
A great comment…”No Babs, the real crime is you liberals bit off on this sham. Saw a good sentence on a blog yesterday and I quote “leave it to the Democrats to institute a tax to change the weather”. Sound familiar Babs?? WHERE is our news media?? Oh, sorry, reporting on Sarah’s chartered jet rides.”
HAHAHAHA
As if we really needed it, we do, now, have rather convincing evidence that Puddy’s bullshit meter is irreparably busted. I pointed out facts that are missing with respect to the peer review issue, and Puddy called that bullshit.
Puddy then goes on a tirade about some alleged investigation without providing any information about who is conducting the investigation or what alleged acts are being investigated, and then demands that I tell him why this phantom investigation is happening.
Apparently Puddy has completely forgotten that “bullshit” is a statement or conclusion of fact with absolutely no supporting evidence to back it up. The mere act of pointing out what facts might be missing from the picture is not “bullshit”. Clearly, we’re into “Alan Greenspan is a liberal” territory here.
Of course Don Joe and correctnotright ignore data like this on FOI2009.zip.
Or this for the original data requests…
Or how the trick was performed…
Don Joe, my Bullshit meter busted? You are in full denial here dude even when identifying bullshit from your side. You must have some skin in the game for “green jobs”. Fess up bud. Seems now the data may not have been stolen or hacked. Will you tell Barbara Boxer to look into this?
It’s you fools who screamed peer review when it’s becoming clearer each day the sunlight sees these files the “professors and scientists” purposely stacked the deck on peer reviewed articles and IPCC 2007 AR4 commentary.
You Don Joe can’t see the facts because your “golden tree is becoming: “fools gold”.
You see Don Joe there is much data on the people hiding behind the “scam”
Yup. Puddy’s bullshit meter is irreparably broken. Four links in the past three comments, and not one of those links provides any information on who is conducting the investigation that Puddy alleges to be happening nor any details on the acts supposedly being investigated.
I’d suggest “Epic Fail,” but that phrase has been way overused, and even that manages to not quite capture the extent of the downfall in Puddy’s reasoning here.
Of course Alan Greenspan is a liberal. According to Stupes, it’s because he’s married to Andrea Mitchell. Liberalism is apparently contagious like H1N1.
Heh! Now we know why Stupes sends his kids to a liberal University in Seattle (UW) to be taught by liberal professors. UW instead of a wingnut school. Poor fool Stupes has been infected by HA.org!
And gee, the broken man Greenspan, said he was wrong about the philosophy that guided him his entire life before Waxman’s committee. He trusted the financial markets to act in their own best interests and regulate themselves. Who could have dreamed they would take risks that would end up destroying themselves much like any typical slob who over-leverages.
Oh don’t forget Paulson was a lefty too. And the TARP was written by the Democratic Congress.
And the chimpanzee he voted for twice signing the TARP into law instead of using his veto pen????
A merely inconvenient truth.
Perhaps this is the “investigation” that Puddy has in mind?
Response to various posts above:
The “prosperity gospel” has been around for quite some time, at least (in it’s modern form) for the past thirty years or so. Without going into a great deal of detail, suffice it to say that it DOES have SOME biblical basis – in varous scriptures God promises a “hundred-fold return”, and in Malachi (Ch. 3) it promises that if we are faithful in our tithes and offerings, God will pour out his blessings from heaven so great that we won’t have room enough in our storehouses to contain them, etc.
The problem is that the Bible never says we will get money. It speaks in terms of “returns” or “blessings”, which MAY of MAY NOT be money. Many blessings are far more valuable than money – good health, obedient children, a loving spouse. The focus on money as the blessing is a major problem to the “prosperity gospel”.
In addition, as many have noted, there are many other passages in the New Testiment which indicated that Christians should not be emotionally tied to their wealth. Jesus commanded the wealthy would-be disciple to sell all he owns and give it to the poor, explaining to the others that “a man cannot serve two masters”. He said that man should not be concerned about worldy possessions, noting that the lillies of the field have no clothing (an expensive article at that time), yet God adorns them with beautiful colors. His own example was to possess nothing but what was required for his (and his disciple’s) day-to-day existence and travels, trusting God to provide for their daily meals.
Now here’s where it gets really hard. There is a long tradition, especially in the Catholic church, of having guilt associated with wealth. Lots of people (but certainly not everyone) keep themselves in poverty because they don’t believe that they desearve anything better.
The Puritans, being of Calvinist theology, take a modified approach, believing that God prospers those who obey him and are industrius and thrifty, but eschewing ostentagious displays of wealth. This became a strong part of U.S. theological and political ideology, and has been latched onto by conservatives as an excuse for not taking care of the poor, on the grounds that for one reason or another, they desearve it. This theology has a very practical benefit in that it encourages good behavior (hard work, thrift, sobriety), but it’s dark side is that it falls into the trap displayed by one of Job’s friends, who asserted that Job’s travails must be due to some “secret sin” on Job’s part. In short, there are very many spiritual, hard-working, thrifty, and sober people who are still poor, yet this theology doesn’t address their situation.
And then you have the other extreme – the “prosperity gospel”. In some cases this is preached by some well-meaning preachers who simply want to encourage disadvantaged people to get out of the mind-set that they somehow always deserve to be poor, or that no matter what they do, they will always be poor for one reason or another. By encouraging them that “God wants ‘his children’ to be prosperous”, those preachers try to give these people a new vision for their future.
But it’s a pretty tricky line between “encouragement” and over-reaching, and quite a few pastors trip over that line (and some run head-long past it). This was apparant in the “Name It and Claim It” teachings common in the 1980’s (and mostly discredited since then). I’d certainly agree that there are SOME preachers who take advantage of those who are looking for hope and using it for their own benefit, either directly in contributions to support an inordinately wealthy life-style, or by engaging in business dealings with their congregation (a situation which is rife with potentials for a claim of a breach of fiduciary obligations).
Of course, the elephant in the room is the pastor who has a great deal of wealth yet who encourages a relatively poor congregation to give even more money to support the church (and himself or herself). Personally, I don’t expect a pastor to live in poverty, and I don’t begrudge them a reasonably comfortable level of income.
But there’s the rub – everybody measures what is appropriate for a pastor’s income as compared with their own. My experience in sitting on church boards which had to determine compensation revealed that church members generally thought a pastor shouldn’t get paid more than 20% above what they, themselves, make. If you have a congregation which contains a wide disparity of incomes among the parishiners, then there is always a group that thinks the pastors are being overpaid.
But a lot of pastors with national followings make more money from other (but related) sources than from their home church. Most pastors who speak at other churches receive an “honorarium” for that service, and they also get additional funds for conducting weddings, funerals, and some types of counseling (such as pre-marital counseling, etc.). But this is small potatos compared to the money they get from books sales, DVDs, or contributions received nationally (or internationally) as part of TV programs. Depending upon their agreement with their home church, these ventures may be entirely seperate from the income coming into the church. One pastor I know doesn’t even get a salary from the church, his income comes entirely from book and DVD sales (he writes a new book about once every two years or so). Another pastor gets his income from “motivational seminars” he conducts for corporations – which he says is the same thing he preaches in his church, he just doesn’t mention the bible versus or quote from the scripture.
Anyway, that’s a very short synopsis.
@48 “Obama fails to invite the Chamber of Commerce or the National Federation of Independent Businesses which represent those who actual CREATE Small Business jobs.”
Why should he invite them? So they can lobby for more tax breaks to send jobs overseas?
@50 “Barbara Boxer wants to focus on e-mail theft”
Oh, it’s okay when you guys do it? But Jim McDermott should pay $1 million in civil damages if he releases an intercepted phone conversation between Republican congressmen plotting to overthrow our democracy? If these stolen e-mails result in the planet being destroyed, the people who disseminated them should be legally liable for 100 trillion billion gazillion ickthillion dollars of damages.
@58 Good God, this fucking idiot who calls himself “puddy” doesn’t even know the difference between “plagiarism” and “fair use” — and he’s lecturing us about peer review? Wingnut idiocy doesn’t get any funnier than this …
@62 And here I thought they only wanted to steal our labor, our sweat, and our money …
@64 Who’s paying for Palin’s chartered jet rides? Alaska taxpayers? Or some other state’s taxpayers?
@65 The only investigation is East Anglia University’s in-house investigation. They’re investigating who breached their computer security and how the perp(s) did it.
@67 Yes, puddle, it’s reasonable to infer your bullshit meter is busted when you’re drowning in bullshit and don’t even know you’re suffocating in the stuff.
Rog…I sent a note to Goldy. I hope he thinks it’s a good idea as well.
@72 I always wondered how the preacher in my Republican hometown made a living from what my good Republican neighbors put in the collection plate every Sunday, which, generally speaking, wasn’t enough to support a lemonade stand.
@63: Stamn fool
Umm, I know you are not too bright – but all the published data from NOAA and most of the other sources is not in question here – only some data that a couple of researchers revised (that needed to be revised – but HOW they did it may MAY matter).
So far there is NO proof that any of the hundreds (or thousands) of published papers contain any false data…so if you can’t find the information it is because you are too dumb to use google or Pubmed.
Of course if you could find a single peer-reviewed article refuting climate change we would all love to see it….since it doesn’t exist.
@66: Poor little Puddy
E-mail exchanges were just “found”…even though they are private….wow, your BS meter just went off the charts.
You really do believe all the BS you read.
Her Stamn fool – I did your homework for you:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
This link has all the climate information including the raw data that you would ever need to know. Try actually looking at the data and then try using something called your brain (I know, you have not used it in a long time) and then see what is actually happening to planet earth.
How come the white house is claiming executive privilege over the fired white house party favor chief? Smells test failure on the Salahis.
Foolish Dumb Bunny,
He broke communications laws fool. Oh wait for it… those laws are only enforced when Democrats use them for political purposes…
Don Joe displays his moronic self again…
Now one on the left is calling for an investigation except for George Monbiot. All the fools have circled the wagons. Don Joe knows this so his blathering about is much about nothing BULLSHIT as always from Don Joe!
you can always see when ylb arschloch posts, it’s the same shit different day.
Fist off fool almost every major university out there is liberal ya stupid moron. Proves you weren’t college material ylb arschloch. You’d know this today. IVY League skuuls are bastions of libtardo thought. Let’s see where ylb arschloch’s children end up. Since your son is going to be a Republican (well who can blame him when he sees what his father is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) we’ll see where he goes. Hopefully he got his brains from his grandfather cuz his father is a loser with a big L. Leftist loser with the left porn eye.
See ya sucka!
The ClimateGate house of cards is a tumblin down and correctnotright along with Don Joe are seeing how they blocked peer review to their benefit. His heroes are being investigated and Al Gorebasm just cancelled his Denmark trip. Guess the debate ain’t over yet huh you two fools?
@89 Blocked peer review..hhahahaha
Puddy is fantasizing again.
I put up the data site for climate info…it is publically available. Has Puddy gone to actually look at the data or is he going to take the word of S. Fred Singer, the oil industry hack?
To the Person Playing Puddybud @ 89,
“…how they blocked peer review to their benefit”
What the fuck is your character babbling about now?
You do realize that this statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, don’t you?
Have a talk with your Puddybud character and clue him in to stop spewing nonsense about stuff he doesn’t understand. He is really making you look like retarded country bumpkin.
Darryl hasn’t stated it explicitly, but it’s worth repeating: no one, including Puddy, has supplied any evidence whatsoever that Profs. Jones or Mann actually did anything to block publication of scientifically worthy articles.
Which brings me to this whole “investigation” thread. First, Puddy asks us why Profs. Jones and Mann are being investigated. I pointed out that Puddy has provided no information as to who is conducting this alleged investigation or which specific acts are being investigated.
Puddy replied by posting links to conspiracy theorist blog posts but not one link providing any information about an investigation. Now, Puddy’s not even talking about an actual investigation that would form the premise of his initial question; he’s talking about who is or is not calling for an investigation.
And all of this is supposed to mean that I’m being moronic–this from the guy who responds to a request for facts with a link to a blog post that begins with the statement, “I have a theory.”
@64
Yes Ms Boxer is really interested in those emails…
please call her SENATOR boxer, she/he cheated so hard for that title.
@ 85: Puddy, I would appreciate it greatly if you could point to posts where you howled at outrage at the Bush White House claiming executive priviledge over Congressional attempts to question administration officials over the e-mail scandal (Rove & Cheney using private e-mail accounts to circumvent the Presidential Records Act), Cheney’s refusal to testify under oath before Congress regarding the Plame investigation, withholding records of who visited the White House to take part in the Administration’s summit to create government oil policy (held not too long before the decision was made to invade Iraq), etc., etc., etc.
And you want to make an issue over whether someone in the White House social office should testify over who was supposed to be at the gates with the guest list?
You’ve really got your priorities out of whack.
Irrelevant to the ClimateGate scandal. In the words of checksaaz, false equivalence.
So where is Puddy finding these emails that correctnotright, Don Joe and Darryl seem to have problems finding.
On the Internet!
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
So correctnotright, Don Joe and Darryl can search these emails just like Puddy did on some of them…
Late as usual….
Just wondering how all the Conservative are doing out there knowing that Tiger Woods violated the Marriage Mantra of “One Woman and One Man”. It appears that Tiger thinks it should be “One man and 4 Woman” but just not on paper. So for all the conservatives out there who think this should be none of anyones business, how do you make gay marriage your business?
Doesn’t Tigers actions hurt those who think Conventional Marriage is being attacked by outsiders….who does two gay people getting married affect “Marriage between One Woman and One Man” any more than Tiger Woods actions and the actions of the other 50% of heterosexuals who are unfaithful….opps, let’s not talk about it.
puddytat @various: None of this proves that alpine glaciers or polar ice caps are growing.
Good grief, Puddy, if you’re going to go all batshit crazy then maybe you should take it to a street corner or something.
Roger Dumb Bunny@104, Only you are claiming this. That is not the original issue with the fudged data and emails.
Great deflection Dumb Bunny.
Steve,
Batshit crazy? If facts make you batshit crazy then guilty as charged!
Don Joe, correctnotright, and Darryl claimed there was no collusion, etc. against the antagonists over peer reviewed activites. These emails are a small sample from the web site. Puddy just chose a few to prove them wrong…
@102 According to puddlehead, photographic proof of shrinking glaciers isn’t relevant to the issue of climate change, it’s only a “deflection.” Would someone at the nut house please get a straitjacket from the equipment room?
http://www.worldviewofglobalwa.....ciers.html
The issue, as I understand it, is that some academics at an English university committed the indiscretion of calling the paid hacks of the petroleum and coal industries impolite names.
Roger Dumb Bunny…
The emails and the data manipulation are the question. You can discuss glacial reductions until your “tail” turns white again. You keep bringing it up when the questions around peer review and antagonist comments collusion are very evident. Keep pissing in the wind Roger Dumb Bunny!
@109,
Puddy supplied the emails. Back up your stupid conjecture. Go for it.
Listen Darryl there was nothing wrong with my comment that I made about 1/2 hour. This is an open thread and you didn’t even post it and show that it was deleted due to violating hass policy. So now you are only playing games, you fucking kyke. So you leave me no option but to make comment where ever i wish and whether open thread or not, you will have to be on your toes, or goldy will have to hire more people to be moderators. You fucking suck, and you do like to delete my comment just because you can, and not because they violate your stupid policy that is so ambiguous it doesn’t even make sense.
So go Fuck yourself.!!!!!
If you are going to moderate my comments, then someone should be there to moderate. makes no sense for my comments to post 2 days after I make the comment, I’ve been fair, so lets start being fair by not moderating my comments.
Now, why should Darryl or I waste any time searching the internet in order to find stuff to make Puddy look like a fool when Puddy is more than willing to do all that work for us.
Just a few hints to help Puddy figure this stuff out. Regarding the first e-mail, “ENSO” stands for “El Nino Southern Oscillation,” and “JGR” stands for the Journal Geophysical Research. The names “McLean” “Freitas,” and “Carter” might be useful as well. One might also want to add the name “Joost de Gouw” to the search. Tell us what you find.
As for the second e-mail, “RC” stands for “realclimate.org,” and the e-mail is discussing how they’re going to respond to comments on a blog post. Lots o’ hidin’ goin’ on there.
What a fucking maroon this Puddy creep is.
So now Puddy’s complaining about “data manipulation”? Last I knew, that’s call “mathematics.” It’s what scientists do.
What a maroon.
Hey Don Joe, anyone can search Google for those “definitions”.
Everyone can see Don Joe has NUTHIN to respond to those few emails which are available to anyone so he reverts to the ad hominem attacks.
Regarding De Freitas, Puddy submitted his name and correctnotright claimed “He’s not peer reviewed” so Nuff SAID on that gent. Ask him Don Joe or better yet ask the HA arschloch for the URL date… Carter, now why would Don Joe insert Carter’s name into the mix? Why is McLean in the mix? Did he search the emails for their names? What are their first names Don Joe?
You all can easily search the email site with their names. Read the emails like Puddy did. Will Don Joe do this? Doubt it!
Ahh yes Don Joe… Puddy not complaining about data manipulation. Phil Jones admits it. Where are the original data for reference? Oh they threw it away.
Another useless canard by Don Joe. He always has his quiver full of them.
Puddy exclaims:
“Don Joe, correctnotright, and Darryl claimed there was no collusion, etc. against the antagonists over peer reviewed activites.”
Bull fucking shit. What I said was:
“We have a couple of scientists threatening to alter the peer review process. We have little evidence for why they wanted to alter the review process and absolutely no evidence that they even tried to alter the process let alone succeeded.”
Puddy has succeeded only in proving that these scientists actually engaged in the peer review process the same way any other scientist would use that process. He’s provided absolutely no evidence that they did anything inappropriate or untoward.
The irony is palpable. One of the e-mails Puddy posted above pertains to a review of an article that was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research–an article for which the editor of that journal apologized saying that the JGR should never have published that paper. These, of course, are facts that Puddy would never, in a million years, bring to light.
BULLSHIT Don Joe. The emails prove their peer review rejection act. No matter how much you blather on their words are right there front and center.
They got the GRL guy removed… “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there” The peer review process only worked for those who are on the right side of the issue.
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
You are one true moron Don Joe. Skip over the evidence and keep writing your Climate Change bullet points.
Oh and Don Joe, is the editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research for or against global warming?
Hmmm…? Another of those impalpable useless canards you love to place on HA.
Now back to correctnotright above.
1) The IPCC used the UEA CRU data and Mike Mann’s hockey stick in their report.
2) Mike Mann and others said in emails above they’ll hold antagonist comments from the IPCC AR4 document
3) Cigarette argument is a false equivalence. correctnotright argues just like Don Joe. Must be libtrardoism.
Thanks for not moderating comments when you say you are moderating comments. What bullshit. Either moderate or don’t, you guys leave me no option but to do it my way. Thank you.
Correctnotright stated above Michael Mann wasn’t under investigation.
Puddy – Data manipulation was rampant. So rampant Jones and Mann are being investigated
Correctnotright – Umm, no.
“Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming.”
“Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Unit, announced today that he will step down from his position pending investigation into the matter of the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia servers.”
And you HA Libtardos swoon over correctnotright commentary.
Just wondering how all the Conservative are doing out there knowing that Tiger Woods violated the Marriage Mantra of “One Woman and One Man”. It appears that Tiger thinks it should be “One man and 4 Woman” but just not on paper. So for all the conservatives out there who think this should be none of anyones business, how do you make gay marriage your business?
Doesn’t Tigers actions hurt those who think Conventional Marriage is being attacked by outsiders more than the attack from the outsiders?….who does two gay people getting married affect “Marriage between One Woman and One Man” any more than Tiger Woods actions and the actions of the other 50% of heterosexuals who are unfaithful….opps, let’s not talk about it
Puddy posted this yesterday in a response to Roger Dumb Bunny…
“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
Yet to Don Joe, all that is discountable conjecture.
Puddy @ 95 said:
Have you already forgotten that it was YOU who tried to change the subject in # 85? That was where you said:
Why do you bring up a subject, and then when challenged, claim it is irrelevant? I gave you a pass on bringing up the subject because this is an open thread, but gee, whiz!!!!
You are right rhp6033…
The concern you claim to have is over emails between Rove and Cheney in the executive vs. the white house party lady and who was “officially on the list” which is way different from the emails. The Salahis were or were not on the list. Did the party lady include them or not.
Your argument is specious at best.
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
“Puddy has succeeded only in proving that these scientists actually engaged in the peer review process the same way any other scientist would use that process.”
Please tell your character that he has no fucking idea what he is talking about.
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
” The emails prove their peer review rejection act.”
I have to laugh when I read statements like this from your character “Puddybud”. The statement is worded incredibly awkwardly and simply betrays an almost complete ignorance about what “peer review” is on the part of your character.
It almost makes for comedy. Almost.
Gman @ 119,
“Thanks for not moderating comments when you say you are moderating comments.”
Huh?
Puddy,
For the love of God, man, give it up. Just disappear to a different thread. You’ve been ripped so many new assholes on this thread that you’re about to be oozing poo from front, back, sideways, and everything in between. Because I care so deeply about you, Puddy, slink away with whatever dignity you can carry.
I keep pointing out the lack of substantive evidence behind Puddy’s claims, and Puddy keeps essentially repeating the same claims without providing further corroborating evidence. Puddy quotes e-mails about a “leak” having been plugged at the AUG’s GRL, but Puddy has provided absolutely zip, as in zilch and zero, evidence as to what was done to plug this “leak” or who actually did it.
To see why this is important, consider Puddy’s repeated quoting of “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
The papers referenced in that e-mail, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), were actually cited and discussed in Ch. 3 of the IPCC AR4.
Puddy surmises, on the basis of these e-mails and without a single shred of corroborating evidence, that these few scientists wielded such power and authority throughout the scientific community that they could actually carry out some of the things they wished they could do.
Worse yet, in those cases where one can easily figure out the background facts involved, it turns out that they never did act in any untoward fashion.
As I stated rather early on in this thread, there’s nothing that wingnuts would like more than to alter the peer review process in such a way that would enable publishing more junk science concocted to support their pre-determined conclusions. It’s ironic that wingnuts would accuse these climate scientists of having accomplished that which they themselves have been unable to achieve over years of effort.
This, of course, is yet another fact of which Puddy would like us all to remain ignorant. The Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry marches inexorably forward.
Gman @ 109,
“Listen Darryl there was nothing wrong with my comment that I made about 1/2 hour.”
I’m guessing that you are referring to the comment @ 103?
“This is an open thread and you didn’t even post it and show that it was deleted due to violating hass policy.”
Huh. It looks to me like it was posted. I’m not sure where you got information suggesting it was “deleted due to violating hass policy.” Perhaps you should moderate on the drinking, there, Haas. (That’ll help with that distending belly, too!)
“So now you are only playing games, you fucking kyke.”
How interesting…our Gman is really a right-wing hater.
“You fucking suck, and you do like to delete my comment just because you can, and not because they violate your stupid policy that is so ambiguous it doesn’t even make sense.”
Huh…given that 99% of commenters have no problems following the policy without difficulty, I’m guessing that the “doesn’t make sense” part is a cognitive “issue” unique to you.
By the way, the comment policy explicitly states, “Comments on deleted comments will likely be deleted too…” Obviously, I am not so eager to delete your comments that I delete the ones complaining about deletions I didn’t make!
You see…I am merciful.
111. Don Joe spews:
why should Darryl or I
What an intriguing tag team . . . they have much in common.
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
“Jack Cafferty (you know Darryl’s bud)…”
“Don Joe, correctnotright, and Darryl claimed there was no collusion, etc.”
“So where is Puddy finding these emails that correctnotright, Don Joe and Darryl seem to have problems finding.”
Please try getting your “Puddybud” character under control. I’ve never made a statement of friendship about Cafferty. I’ve not made any statements about collusion or lack thereof. And I’ve made no statements to suggest difficulties finding those emails.
Your character is still a pathological liar. Can’t you do something about his lies and idiotic statements? Please?
Proud Leftist,
Wrong again. How is Puddy ripped new ones? By these three fools? And you are complaining about it? You, who named an award after himself?
More and more world peeps are beginning to agree these is something amiss in ClimateGate. Not only was the data massaged with special inserts, but universities are now realizing their positions are being compromised by these “actions”. Why did Al Gore cancel dudes?
It you HA Libtardos who are always the last to see the tide turning.
Darryl, when you use Jack Cafferty as a thread video, you like his material. Okay the choice of “friend” is a stretch.
Oh and Proud Leftist… Puddy left the emails for your reading.
Go for it. Puddy hasn’t changed anything.
It still amazes me that the head turd in charge of the waste treatment plant, Goldy , makes fun of the 4 officers murdered in Parkland. He’s been a coward so far in responding to what he’d feel if his little ‘ginger’ at home were a barista at Forza’s at that unfortunate moment in time and was unfortunate enough to have to be collateral damage to someone like Clemmon’s. It would appear the Philly Fecal-Pheliac is silent about the issue other than to show the dead body photos of the murderer, while making light of the murders of his victims on the Griswold thread.
It really bolsters the theory that liberalism is a mental disorder, but then, I’ve known that to be fact for years.
Good try Don Joe. Their own words and Puddy has to prove their own words.
They said it in their emails, Puddy delivered it butt, of course Don Joe doesn’t understand how stupid that sounds. Somehow Puddy must determine what was in their minds when they said they plugged the link.
Puddy don’t have to prove shit Don Joe. All Puddy has to do is produce their comments.
And Proud Leftist… Take up your concern with University of East Anglia and Penn State University. They are worried about their reputations while you carry on with the usual blatherings.
To the Person Playing Puddybud @ 134,
“Darryl, when you use Jack Cafferty as a thread video, you like his material.”
Please convey to your character that this statement is bullshit.
Conterfactual 1: I’ve posted far more videos of Glenn Beck than Jack Cafferty. Obviously, I post material from people I disagree with (typically when they are saying or doing something bizarre).
Counterfactual 2: I do post material because I like the content. That doesn’t mean I feel any affiliation with the author beyond the specific content in the material.
Counterfactual 3: I frequently post material, not because I agree or disagree with it, but because I believe it would be entertaining for the audience.
Counterfactual 4: I have only written one (1) post about material from Cafferty. In that post, I strongly disagreed with a statement he made. So by your character’s faulty logic, this should imply that I am the opposite of Cafferty’s “bud” (perhaps his enemy?).
But since your character has raised the question, I’ll tell you where Cafferty stands in my “Friend–Foe” scale. I am neither a fan nor a foe of Cafferty. On the occasion that I see him (I don’t have cable and don’t watch any TV so it is not very often), I simply evaluate his statements.
Please convey this to your character and convey my willingness to accept his apologies for his three erroneous statements about me.
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
“The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there”
Ask your character, “what the bloody fuck does new editorial leadership that apparently ‘plugs a leak’ have to do with undermining the peer review process.” Ask him just like that.
And then tell him his statement comes off as gibberish to anyone who knows anything about the peer review process.
http://horsesass.org/?p=22771
Can you show Puddy where on HorsesASS you disagreed with Cafferty? You chose to use him. Puddy seldom visits Hominid Views so using your web site to prove a negative does not compute on HA.
Oh that’s easy Darryl@139,
When you change the editor to someone on your side, your side now has editorial control. Come on Darryl, you know this. That’s what Puddy asked Don Joe above “is the editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research for or against global warming?”
Still waiting for that answer.
To the Person Playing Puddybud,
“Can you show Puddy where on HorsesASS you disagreed with Cafferty?”
Please explain (again) with the patience of a saint that I have only once written a blog post about Cafferty.
“You chose to use him.”
Yes…I have posted videos of him about a dozen times. But, as I hope you explained to your character, posting a video does not demonstrate camaraderie.
“Puddy seldom visits Hominid Views so using your web site to prove a negative does not compute on HA.”
Please convey to your Puddy character that this statement is deeply flawed. There was no attempt to “prove a negative.” Rather, the link demonstrated clearly that the only post you will find from me about Cafferty was one in which I disagreed. And it is entirely irrelevant whether your character visits Hominid Views or not. The fact is, your character made a claim that completely lacked evidence, and I have:
(1) shown the underlying logic to be faulty [posting a video!=(friend|supporter|fan)].
(2) if the logic was true, the evidence would suggest I was a foe, not a friend.
I know your character has several cognitive deficiencies, so please explain this all to him gently.
And let him know I still would be happy to accept his apology for the three incorrect claims he made about me.
zzzz….AGW….the cult of fools and charlatans
It’s a cycle stupid, not that you would understand this.
…and I thought these fucks didn’t believe in religion?
@136
Please explain how Goldy “makes fun of the 4 officers murdered in Parkland.”
Sure, just visit this thread and see Goldy make fun of a relative of one of the officer’s killed this past sunday morning.
Personally, I’ve never had alot of respect for Golstein because I’ve listened enough to his raido program and visited this site enough to know what kind of person he caters to. This piece really ticked me off because he took a tragic event in order to attack an opposing blogger that was related to one of those gunned down that day.
That’s just what cowards do. I ask what he’d feel if someone did the same if his daughter happened to be in that same coffee shop and someone made light of the situation. Needless to say, Goldy didn’t answer directly, but he knows the answer….he’d be devastated and angry if someone did what he did on their blog. He knows it was a cowardly post to do at that time, yet he did it. Yet, he calls himself a “progressive”. I highly doubt how that could be considered progessive thought.
To the Person Playing Puddybud @ 141
“When you change the editor to someone on your side, your side now has editorial control.”
Again this statement demonstrates hilarious naivety. Journal editors change all the time and there is very often organizational politics involved. The politics is usually about the scope of the journal (e.g the previous editor may chose to set the scope of the journal around mathematical modeling of climate, and then the new editor prefers paleoclimatology or something).
This doesn’t jeopardize the peer review system at all. The scientific publication market is fiercely competitive. In most fields there are dozens, if not hundreds, of competing outlets for publication. If one publication gets a reputation for publishing shoddy science, there are many other choices and only shoddy science will show up in that journal, and then the journal’s impact factor will suffer.
So, by analogy, it is like the manager of a grocery store deciding that Pepsi products are evil and only carrying Coke products. Doing so will not prevent people from buying Coke, they’ll just go elsewhere to get it. Our manager would only hurt his own business while strengthening that of his competitors.
“is the editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research for or against global warming?”
It scarcely matters. In every branch of science there are bitter debates. Most journals are eager to publish stuff on both sides of the debate, provided the science is good. On the other hand, there are examples of debates where journals will only publish on one side of an argument (again, only if the science is acceptable so that the journal’s impact factor does not decline). When this happens, one or more competing journal will typically start specializing in the other side of the debate.
The history of science is replete with examples of great debates, sometimes with polarization of journals other times not. But even with polarized journals, the debates played out among journals. The system worked without a hitch.
@145
You claimed:
Nowhere in the post that you linked to does Goldy make fun of the fallen officers. He makes fun of Sound Politic’s Mark Griswold, not the officers.
Goldy posted an immature post. You made a false claim. I’m going to call that offsetting penalties.
Lil’ Empty Suit Dumbass,
“Sure, just visit this thread and see Goldy make fun of a relative of one of the officer’s killed this past sunday morning.”
Wait…what? Goldy cannot write about a post at sound politics because the author is a distant relative of one of the cops?
That’s just fucking retarded.
And you interpret that as “make[ing] fun of the 4 officers murdered in Parkland”????
That is just plain dishonest.
Can’t you just find a way to hate without lying?
darryl~ are you intentionally stupid or does it come naturally? Needless to say, of all the contributors, you’re the first one to take a bullet for little davey Goldstain, so maybe after being a fat, fucking lazy professor….the Secret service is in your future (especially in this administration), where you’d be uniquely qualified.
It’s Goldy’s little interjections that made it not only tastless, but fucking clueless as well. While this waste treatment plant isn’t usually known for class, Goldstain took an extra step into the depraved as he gleefully made jokes in between the Griswold quotes and seemed to revel a little too much for my tastes.
As I said in the thread, Goldy is a coward and would be pissed if someone did the same to him after such an event that had led to the demise of a relative of his. Somehow, I don’t think he’d find the same humor that his dumb ass saw in writing this post just a day or so after the murders in Parkland.
…and you of all people, Darryl, know this to be true.
Lil’ Empty Suit Dumbass,
“Needless to say, of all the contributors, you’re the first one to take a bullet for little davey Goldstain”
“take a bullet?” That’s hallarious!
“so maybe after being a fat, fucking lazy professor….the Secret service is in your future (especially in this administration), where you’d be uniquely qualified.”
What the fuck are you babbling about? Secret Service? Are you some kind of moon-landing denier, too, Dumbass?
“It’s Goldy’s little interjections that made it not only tastless, but fucking clueless as well. While this waste treatment plant isn’t usually known for class, Goldstain took an extra step into the depraved as he gleefully made jokes in between the Griswold quotes and seemed to revel a little too much for my tastes.”
Goldy was using a literary form known as “Fisking.” That’s how it works. If you don’t appreciate it, then, um… why read it? You claim to hate Goldy, yet you cannot resist reading his posts, and commenting in his comment thread.
This self-loathing behavior of yours is pretty amusing for the rest of us.
“As I said in the thread, Goldy is a coward and would be pissed if someone did the same to him after such an event that had led to the demise of a relative of his.”
This is a non-sequitur. If you are correct that Goldy would be pissed if someone fisked his post after his relative was shot, then doesn’t that make him brave and fearless, rather that a coward?
Your anger seems to be getting the best of your logic!
“Somehow, I don’t think he’d find the same humor that his dumb ass saw in writing this post just a day or so after the murders in Parkland.”
Again, that demonstrates the opposite of cowardice. You logic is failing you miserably today, Rick.
“…and you of all people, Darryl, know this to be true.”
I do? Why me “of all people”???
@107 According to our illogical friend poodlehead, e-mails are important, shrinking glaciers aren’t.
Thank you, Lord, for letting me be a rabbit instead of a stupid human.
Puddy @various: Puddy, even if every scientist in the world is lying through his teeth, it’s a fact that GLACIERS ARE SHRINKING. Why do glaciers shrink? Because the CLIMATE IS WARMER.
OH…Hi Lil’ Ricky Dumbass!!!
I thought you got banned from here…too bad you weren’t, shithead.
For once, I agree Darryl. Obama is exactly that
When did I claim to hate Goldy? I pity the boy, but he’s not worth even thinking about most of the time. He is a loathesome person that seemed to find humor in the deaths of 4 police officers within 48 hours of their death. My problem with him is he’d be whining like a squealing little cunt if SP had a similar piece on him if one of his relatives were involved in the police murders. And his dumbass knows it, too.
Wow, Darryl. Self loathing? If I need to see a bunch of self loathing people, I’d spend more time at this waste treatment plant. But I prefer to spend most of my time engaging with those that enjoy their lives and are productive. Somthing that this site doesn’t provide.
No, that would make him a coward? If his little ginger at home was the barista at the Forza and SP fisked this event 24 hrs after that tragedy, he’d be all bent out of shape in here posting furiously about it, angry as hell- Because she wasn’t, Goldy feels compelled to make light of the tragedy instead. Like I said, A coward.
Puddy exclaims:
“Puddy don’t have to prove shit Don Joe. All Puddy has to do is produce their comments.”
Puddy might well have found enough evidence to convince Puddy of that which Puddy already believes to be true, but Puddy is also the same person who concocted the notion that Alan Greenspan is a liberal. Puddy might not wish to admit it, but there are quite a few details missing from his interpretation of these e-mails.
In an earlier comment I’d pointed out:
Just a few hints to help Puddy figure this stuff out. Regarding the first e-mail, “ENSO” stands for “El Nino Southern Oscillation,” and “JGR” stands for the Journal Geophysical Research. The names “McLean” “Freitas,” and “Carter” might be useful as well. One might also want to add the name “Joost de Gouw” to the search.
Now, had Puddy actually done a search using the terms mentioned above, he’d have likely found this, which recounts the tale of some junk science that managed to get published in the JGR. So egregious was this faux pas that the editor of JGR, Joost de Gouw, apologized saying that the JGR should never have published that paper. The post at that link also gives a pretty good run-down of the flaws in that paper.
So, what do we have here? One reasonable explanation for the facts Puddy has adduced is that there is a group of organizations, right-wing think tanks, who, with the financial backing of some very profitable fossil fuel companies, have undertaken to publish papers in peer reviewed journals without actually using the accepted scientific methodologies. In other words, they’re trying to publish junk science that might look good to lay persons, but work that doesn’t really pass muster among those who have knowledge of the specific fields in question.
Given that the peer review process isn’t foolproof, some of these papers manage to run the gauntlet and get published. It’s possible for certain journals to acquire a reputation for being duped into publishing junk science, which is why you sometimes see journal editors apologizing for having published some of this junk science.
It’s even possible for certain editors to acquire a reputation for publishing junk science, which could well cause dismay among the scientific community–a level of dismay at which some scientists might talk of plugging leaks.
Puddy provides us with no evidence that would allow us to make a reasonable choice between these two possible interpretations of the facts before us. Indeed, Puddy demands that I ascertain for him whether or not a particular journal editor is pro or anti AGW. Yet again, Puddy wants me to do his legwork claiming that he doesn’t have to prove anything.
Puddy seems to think, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, that this is all about some concerted effort to deny some scientists a legitimate voice at the table. I have adduced evidence that something else is afoot–namely that this is about legitimate science vs junk science.
It’s worth noting that, while Puddy has accused me of ignoring some facts, it is actually Puddy who has assumed the ostrich posture. Puddy has no interest in really figuring out what’s going on here, and we can, with very little doubt, conclude that truthfulness is not one of Puddy’s favored virtues.
Puddy is obviously not alone in his belief (backed by the e-mails and numerous other FACTS) that Climate Data was falsified.
Oh and Darryl…here is Obama’s big speech bounce in the polls…NONE!
Friday, December 04, 2009
Seems like you KLOWNS are in the minority….again.
Your RELIGION is truly based on false data…unlike mine which is based on the ROCK!
Puddy–
You would understand this and the few Christian’s here at HA–
Climate Data==Sinking Sand!
I think this Climategate scandal of phoney info will make this worse! Time to rename your Party to the Communist Party.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
@156
Because, after all science should be done via public opinion poll.
159. Chris Stefan spews:
Because, after all, scientific data should be phoneyed up for a Marxist ideology. Power & control thru false data.
The point is Chris, America is tired of being lied to. This issue will not go away and will only get worse for the Progressive movement which has worked to get towns & cities throughout the country to spend Billions fighting a demon that does not exist. They have successfully created a Man is Evil, we need Big Government Boogie Man that is now being unraveled at a rapid pace. Heck, true believer Scientists are even appalled and bailing at a rapid clip!
What reputable scientist wants to be identified with SKY IS FALLING BASED ON CONJURED DATA?? These folks worry about their reputation & legacy Chris.
They are saying WE’VE BEEN DUPED!
Throwing Algore and data collectors/manipulators under the friggin’ bus!
These poll numbers are relevant not as science…but as a reflection of the outrage at fake science aka political agenda science.
It’s obvious these “scientists” needed a certain outcome in order to validate their claims…and they provided it.
Suckers like Gore should be humiliated….but he is too arrogant. Watch Gore fight the tidal wave as his book (based on phoney data) is torn to shreds even more.
Should Gore give back his Nobel Prize??
These hackers have literally saved the world.
“Because, after all, scientific data should be phoneyed up for a Marxist ideology.”
Funny, but the instances where we have proof of scientific data being “phoneyed up” (follow the link I posted earlier) have been papers published in opposition to AGW, and the ideology behind those endeavors is one driven entirely by maximal corporate profits.
“The point is Chris, America is tired of being lied to.”
Which really makes me wonder why Mr. Cynical spends so much of his time here either obscuring or distorting the truth.
Speaking of Liars Don Joe–
Don’t you think Goldy should discuss LIAR GREGOIRE’s flip-flop on tax increases??
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....es04m.html
The Democrat Lies are so numerous, it’s hard for you KLOWNS to keep them straight and try to defend them.
Don Joe–
I read the e-mails. It’s clear they were distorting data and had an agenda…which scientists should not have.
You are wrong.
More to come.
The farcical 3-act mini-drama called Debunking the Climate Change Myth has only just begun.
Hey, that should be our theme song..
The Carpenters—“We’ve Only Just to Begun” to put a spotlight on your evil bullshit and agenda!
TOO DAMN FUNNY!!
Call for Gore to return his OSCAR!
It’s Only Just Begun!
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....openhagen/
reuters, so liberal they use photoshopped photos reports-
But the debate is over. Although correctnotright, daddylove and ylb are unable to provide a single link to the debate.
Yup, global-warming is just like slavery.
man-madeup-global-warming has jumped the shark.
Cyn think people should act exactly the same as they did a year ago regardless of what has changed over the course of that year.
It’s also being reported in the liberal left-leaning los angeles times–
Follow the money. Follow al gore’s money.
Of course the liberal media doesn’t want to talk about it. How does reporting the news help oba-mao?
@158
Of course the numbers took a little a little dip, we have a bunch of Democrats in congress acting like Republicans.
You think it’s good news for the Republicans that people are further to the left than most congressional Democrats?
Mr. Cynical:
I read the e-mails. It’s clear they were distorting data and had an agenda…which scientists should not have.
I’m surprised I should have to repeat this, but what Mr. Cynical calls “distorting data” most people would call “mathematics.” It’s what scientists do.
The question isn’t whether or not they used math. The issue is whether or not the math they used was valid and/or justified, and one cannot answer that question unless one is an expert in the field.
I’m also surprised that I should have to repeat my reference to the link I posted earlier. There are documented cases where the math that some scientists have used is clearly not the correct math for the conclusion they want to draw. Those cases involve AGW denialists. This form of “phoneyed” data seems to not disturb Mr. Cynical in the least, and Mr. Cynical appears to have no explanation for his own bias in this regard.
Looks like Mr. Cynical pays lip service to the truth, but, when we take a closer look, it becomes clear that Mr. Cynical is just another ideologue cherry-picking facts to suit his rhetorical ends.
@168
When this story “broke” all the credible news reports said there wasn’t anything in the emails that disproves Global Warming. I posted a link to a Christian Science Monitor story that said the same thing.
But, Cyn and his ilk need something to cling too, so cling they do.
Puddy spouts off again about things he knows nothing about – making Puddy appear to be even more of a fool:
1
Here is why Puddy knows absolutely nothing about science or the climate change data of the IPCC:
From Realclimate.org:
1. The IPCC data (collected for over 40 years) has not been manipulated in any way. Puddy is worng and a liar here, period.
so much for Puddy’s simplistic inferences …they don’t hold water. Instead, Puddy prefers to listen to the well known petroleum and TOBACCO industry hack – S Fred Singer.
Note that the petroleum and tobacco science controversies have a similar protagonist – S. Fred Singer – paid stooge of industry.
correctnotright,
Puddy didn’t use Fred Singer… you choose to bring him up. Is Fred in any of the emails Puddy selected or as always you bring something up to make your day brighter since facts are hard to find…?
Darryl let me try to explain or answer some of your question that you ask in response to my comments.
Beccause my comments are being moderated before being posted they are not showing up in the thread in a timely fasioin because you are not timely in your moderating. How often do you moderate? Do the comments go on moderated at times? If so, since my comments are being moderated and there is noone there moderating live, then my comments do not get posted until after 20 other comments by others have been made, leaving my comment knee deep in other peoples shit.
And until they are officially posted, after they await moderation, they do not show up on my computer screen if I were to sign off and re sign in on the website. They do not reappeat to me until I actually make another comment post…therefore, last night after making one comment, I signed off and came back about 1/2 hour later only to not see my comment and I thought it was deleted. But then I made another post, the one that I rant in, and then the comment shows up, still showing that it has to be moderated..
How about we get rid of my comments beinig moderated. I think you like to have control of when they show up or you know that they will be left knee deep in shit after moderated on, years after the original comment was made.
Otherwise I will post at will whenever I want, open thread or not, on many other fictitious names circumventing your ass. Capice.
You see when correctnotright starts screaming you know there’s a fire on his ASS
“The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
“Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.”
Great article… Puddy doesn’ get the leeway Roger Dumb Bunny does with copying five paragraphs at a time cuz, well we all know, Roger gets a pass for dementia! Ann Coulter Humor.
correctnotright still doesn’t get it. Puddy isn’t using whackamole sites or those who are “swinging dick his way” like correctnotright loves to use; Puddy uses MSM sites. Wait for it ylb arschloch will say something really pithy…
Can you say BULLSHIT to correctnotright?
BULLSHIT
Hmmm don’t like the data through away data points. Now that was simple…
Oh correctnotright,
Now Michael Mann is trying to throw Phil Jones under de bus… I guess you can learn a lot from Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm when he threw his white grandmother under de bus…
“One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.
[Butt Butt Butt Don Joe said that didn’t happen. Read his bullshit above.]
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: “I can’t put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email.”
Prof Mann also said he could not “justify” a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.”
Then Mann says the emails were cherry picked and mined for single words when everyone can see the WHOLE EMAIL STREAM in it’s entirety. Cover Your ASS Mike Mann!
And you fools you can find all these tidbits in the URL Puddy placed above…
An email sent by one of Prof Jones’s colleagues said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” [Sounds like the travesty of correctnotright and Don Joe’s “brain”. Students are still looking for Darryl’s.]
Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures, wrote another email in which he said sceptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone“. By chance, he now admits he has “accidentally” deleted some of the raw data.
Another message said the CRU’s method of collating data “renders the station counts totally meaningless… so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!“”
Puddy–
Way to go.
Don Joe & cnr are going batshit because they were true believers!
Their faith in the God of Global Warming was based on SINKING SAND!
They will never admit it…even though your posts clearly cast a monstgrous kloud over the very basis…the datum,,,on which their religion is based.
TOO
DAMN
FUNNY!
Mr. Cynical @ 156,
“Puddy is obviously not alone in his belief…that Climate Data was falsified.”
No shit, Sherlock. But this belief (which Puddy is merely parroting) is not based on any analysis of the underlying science. It is the usual Wingding departure from reality.
Among nearly all scientists who are actually qualified to evaluate and understand the science, anthropogenic global warming is completely uncontroversial.
To the Person Playing Puddybud @ 174,
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Ask your character to stop it with the intellectual dishonesty. If he were to look at the context of the statement, this statement (about “the moment”) isn’t at all inconsistent with anthropogenic global warming. There is stochasticity in temperatures as well as systematic natural cycles combined with the long-term trend. Scientists commonly refer to the stochastic component as “error,” “noise”, “unexplained variability”, etc. If your character had a background that exposed him to the language of scientists, the statement would be unsurprising. In other words, it is your character’s ignorance of science that lead to the his conclusion.
“Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures”
Again…your character is either massively underinformed or just plain lying. The group was a consumer of raw data provided to them by primary sources. It was the aggregate data that was lost in a move. All of the raw data is available from the primary sources (which is really the only way to get the data unless the secondary user has permission to disseminate the data).
This issue is quite old now. Even AGW critic Roger Pielke Jr. understands and accepts what happened.
Even if the unit refused to release their data, how does that undermine AGW? It may be mean, uncollegial, and perhaps even a violation of civil code, but the raw data have been collected and synthesized by numerous other groups. So, if this one group was “fudging” their data, then their findings would not be replicated by those other groups. The fact is, competing groups come up with similar long-trend patterns, even if the details are very different (see, for example, this graph).
“Another message said the CRU’s method of collating data “renders the station counts totally meaningless… so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!“”
Again, taking a statement so completely out of context like this renders it utterly meaningless. And it is intellectually dishonest to do so. How, SPECIFICALLY, does it undermine 40 years of AGW research by many thousands of scientists? If you can, it would help to point to the specific analysis in a particular peer reviewed publication that you suspect was fudged based on this statement.
Seriously, Person Playing Puddybud, your character hasn’t made a case that the emails demonstrate anything that undermines the author’s SCIENCE, let alone the entire body of research in AGW. Furthermore, from the arguments he has put forth so far, it is hard to imagine that your character has the intellect, training, honesty, or even common sense to actually do so.
“Puddybud, your character”
If Puddy is presenting a character that is slowly going insane, then his is a very remarkable performance, one deserving of recognition and accolades. Sigh! It’s far, far more likely that Puddy’s simply going batshit crazy on us.
Steve,
Since the person who plays Puddy is a good, clean Christian, I can only assume that he is role-playing on HA.
This is, I strongly suspect, the way he justifies to himself the disconnect between his Christian ideals (like, say, not lying) and his behavior on HA. His persistent third person references to Puddy are because the lying, hatred, inability to “love those who despise you”, taking the Lord’s name in vain, etc., etc. is not really him…it is his character Puddy that he is only role-playing.
You could well be correct. I have read what others have written, people like SJ and GBS who have actually met Puddy, describing him in ways that are completely at odds with the HA persona he presents here. For Puddy’s sake, I hope that’s true and that it’s all some strange game he plays to amuse himself.
179. Darryl spews:
Now Darryl is a matchbook psychoanalyst.
You know Darryl, I’ve heard you actually have a brain…you just fail to show it here by constantly posting the DailyKos bullshit.
No critical thought.
I’ve met Puddy.
He is a well-spoken, thoughtful guy….who thinks you are full of yorself and full of shit Darryl.
Puddy loves to research and has a photographic memory.
Your worst nightmare.
If you KLOWNS had your way, you would have Puddy pickin’ cotton or shinin’ your shoes.
Assholes.
Oh, my. I point out the flaws in Puddy’s speculative conclusions, and what does Puddy do? He goes out and finds someone else’s speculation.
Oh, but their speculation is, somehow, OK, ’cause Puddy thinks they’re part of the “em-es-em”! Of course, I suppose we’re also supposed to overlook the cases where the speculators he’s quoted actually get their facts wrong. (No, I won’t point them out; why bother? If Puddy had half a brain, he could find which facts are not accurate.)
Contrast this with my previous comment regarding the supposed suppression of some papers from the IPCC AR4. Not only did I name the papers being discussed in the e-mails that Puddy has quoted, I pointed to where the IPCC AR4 actually references and discusses those papers. These are facts that Puddy could well have gone out and verified for himself, but, clearly, Puddy is far more interested in salacious speculation than actually finding the truth.
Puddy has become the antithesis of a black hole. Volumes of effluence spew forth in these comment threads, but not a single verifiable fact that would shoot a hole in Puddy’s conclusions is capable of reaching the core of Puddy’s brain. We have, in this thread, incontrovertible proof that Puddy just doesn’t give a shit.
Puddy’s use of onomatopoeia is so apropos. The only thing Puddy’s good at is making noise.
Tell you what, folks, you can go read Puddy’s links to the British equivalent of Fox Noise, or you can read what the Scientific American has to say:
The linked reference is 6 pages long, and is loaded with links to supporting documentation and references. Compare and contras, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which source is more credible.
I’ve found it! Puddy’s favorite tool.
Another Darryl and Don Joe tag team session. So much in common, these two . . .
Gman @ 172,
“Darryl let me try to explain or answer some of your question that you ask in response to my comments.”
Ok.
“Beccause my comments are being moderated before being posted they are not showing up in the thread in a timely fasioin because you are not timely in your moderating.”
Sometimes I am very timely. Other times I have stuff to do.
“How often do you moderate?”
It is extremely variable.
“Do the comments go on moderated at times?”
??
“If so, since my comments are being moderated and there is noone there moderating live, then my comments do not get posted until after 20 other comments by others have been made, leaving my comment knee deep in other peoples shit.”
There are no “live moderators.” You are correct that your comments typically show up after other comments have been posted.
“And until they are officially posted, after they await moderation, they do not show up on my computer screen if I were to sign off and re sign in on the website. They do not reappeat to me until I actually make another comment post…therefore, last night after making one comment, I signed off and came back about 1/2 hour later only to not see my comment and I thought it was deleted. But then I made another post, the one that I rant in, and then the comment shows up, still showing that it has to be moderated..”
All of your comments are currently moderated. That means they are saved in a list and one of the moderators must approve or reject them.
“How about we get rid of my comments beinig moderated.”
As I mentioned previously, when you demonstrate that you can comment within the rules that everyone else is expected to comment under, then you shall be FREE!…er, unmoderated.
“I think you like to have control of when they show up…”
The “control” issue is that it is easier to moderate messages than it is to go back and delete messages. My preference would be to have neither deletions or moderation…I have better uses for my time. Unfortunately, self-policing doesn’t work for a small fraction of commenters.
“…or you know that they will be left knee deep in shit after moderated on, years after the original comment was made.”
As you just pointed out, some of your comments were very quickly through moderation. Others take longer. It just depends on when I am in front of a computer and checking the spam and moderation queues. And don’t fool yourself…I don’t deal with your comments any differently than any one else whose comments are trapped by the spam filter or triggers moderation. I deal with every one of them every time I check.
“Otherwise I will post at will whenever I want, open thread or not, on many other fictitious names circumventing your ass.”
I was going to compliment you on submitting this comment that falls fully within the commenting policy, offering evidence that you understand are willing to abide by the comment policy. Unfortunately, my enthusiasm is reduced by this last statement.
BTW: you are not restricted to open threads. But you must adhere to the comment policy, so keep your comments on-topic in non-open threads.
Good luck.
Mr. Cynical (and Steve),
“I’ve met Puddy.”
So have I.
“He is a well-spoken, thoughtful guy”
I agree! But it is exactly for this reason that I believe he must be role-playing. I cannot reconcile the person with the commenter. They are two entirely different personalities. For example, the character Puddybud had no issues lying to me, even when I asked him not to lie. When I caught him lying, he actually fessed up! What’s up with that, and how could Puddy reconcile lying with his faith? How could Puddy reconcile much of his behavior with his faith?
“Puddy loves to research and has a photographic memory”
That may be true of the person who plays Puddy. But the character Puddy is unable to construct an honest and rational argument using evidence-base reasoning. If our friend is as smart as we both think he really is, it is almost certainly an act…he is role-playing. Nothing about it is “real” to him.
If my hunch is correct, I don’t believe other commenters should treat his comments as if they are real. Most of us want to engage in dialog with a real person, not a fictitious person who has license to ignore minimal standards of being truthful and arguing with intellectual honesty.
@187….Darryl, here is my beef with moderating my comments, clarification to one of your responses to my respons…..You said, “There are no “live moderators.” You are correct that your comments typically show up after other comments have been posted”. Well, my comment is posted after several other comments, but not after their comments, it gets posted much earlier, so if i comment then 5 other people comment, my comment gets posted 6 comments from the end….I don’t care if you moderate my comments, I do care that my comment does show up, but 6 comments back….I’d much prefer if my comment were to be posted at the end of the comment thread once released from moderation….because the conversation or comments can go on for many minutes due to you not moderating in a live fashion, and hence they get lost. So maybe this is something that can be changed. And hopefully you can monitor more frequently, otherwise my comments have less impact, and at that point I mine as well give up or fight fire with fire and do things my way. And if it can’t be changed, then hopefully one day you will get rid of moderating my comments. I think I have shown enough compliance over the last many weeks to a month – you are only being an ass at this point.
Darryl you must be sleeping. You see I posted a comment about 4 hours ago, but it is not showing up as a comment. Hence this email. Now, I know as soon as I submit this comment, the comment that I submitted 4 hours ago will show up and it will say that it is awaiting moderation, unless you have deleted it, but I am sure it is there, just pending moderation. That is my beef. Not that you are moderating my comments, moderate all you wish, but my comment is being held for too long, if I were trying to rebut someone in a comment it would make no sense because it wouldn’t post until you release. This is stupid, admit it, I have not done anything wrong in the last many weeks for you to keep moderating comments. I would wish we could resolve this in a reasonable fashion. I have some patience, but it is waning.
“Well, my comment is posted after several other comments, but not after their comments, it gets posted much earlier, so if i comment then 5 other people comment, my comment gets posted 6 comments from the end….I don’t care if you moderate my comments, I do care that my comment does show up, but 6 comments back….I’d much prefer if my comment were to be posted at the end of the comment thread once released from moderation….”
Me too. But that isn’t how it works. I cannot reorder comments. Sorry.
“because the conversation or comments can go on for many minutes due to you not moderating in a live fashion, and hence they get lost. So maybe this is something that can be changed.”
I’ll look into it, but I seriously doubt it.
“And hopefully you can monitor more frequently, otherwise my comments have less impact, and at that point I mine as well give up or fight fire with fire and do things my way.”
Sorry…I won’t be moderating more frequently.
“And if it can’t be changed, then hopefully one day you will get rid of moderating my comments.”
As I’ve pointed out several times, you will no longer be moderated after you have demonstrated a willingness and ability to abide by the rules of the forum. I realize this is made more difficult by moderation, but that is what you have to work with. Circumventing the system will only provide short-term “relief” as your comments will be deleted and you will remain under moderation status for even longer.
“I think I have shown enough compliance over the last many weeks to a month – you are only being an ass at this point.”
Umm…no you haven’t.
“Darryl you must be sleeping. You see I posted a comment about 4 hours ago, but it is not showing up as a comment.”
Ummm…I was on an airplane.
“Now, I know as soon as I submit this comment, the comment that I submitted 4 hours ago will show up and it will say that it is awaiting moderation, unless you have deleted it, but I am sure it is there, just pending moderation.”
It showed up nearly 2 hours later.;
“Not that you are moderating my comments, moderate all you wish, but my comment is being held for too long, if I were trying to rebut someone in a comment it would make no sense because it wouldn’t post until you release. “
Life’s a bitch!
“This is stupid, admit it, I have not done anything wrong in the last many weeks for you to keep moderating comments. I would wish we could resolve this in a reasonable fashion. I have some patience, but it is waning.”
Your compliance, while not ideal, is noted. We aren’t there yet, however.
@192 Charge him 50 cents a word to post here.
@192 Charge him 50 cents a word to post here. That’ll
@192 Charge him 50 cents a word to post here. That’ll solve everything.
See Darryl, the Rabbit repeats himself all the time, and nothing is deleted. You said it, life isn’t fair, and this situation is not fair. And the original post didn’t post for 3 hours, you stated 2 and I originally stated 4. 3 hours is a lot different from 2.
You know you are being more harsh on me than others. The HAss Policy is so ambiguous, the minute you stop moderating comments, you will find that I say something wrong, and you will put me back in moderation at a minutes notice, meanwhile every other asshole here can post what ever they wish and they get a way with it. Again, I have some patience, but it will only last so long.
When and if the time comes when you stop moderating my comments, I have very little faith that you will treat my comments with the same respect as others and we will then find myself in this same position. It take two to Tango, and you will have to be more considerate for this to work.
Gman,
“See Darryl, the Rabbit repeats himself all the time, and nothing is deleted.”
Not true. Roger Rabbit’s comments do get deleted. But, your complaints show a fundamental misunderstanding of why your comments were not considered within the policy. Let’s explore the difference.
In the three comments above (193, 194, 195), I would have deleted the 193 and 194 if I happened to notice. (Now I’ll leave them for their instructional value.) Clearly, there was some type of error that resulted in a single comment being submitted in incomplete form twice, followed by successful submission the third time. The erroneous repetition is not a concern. And the comment clearly is part of the discussion.
In your case, you were repeatedly submitting variations of the same comment outside of any context of discussion. Essentially, your comments were analogous to an advertisement. As I said before, if you want to engage in hate-speech sloganeering, start your own blog. The HA comment threads are not the proper venues for that kind of thing. Your hate-slogans are treated in the same manner as we would treat one of Fred Phellps’ morons posting “God Hates Fags” outside the context of discussion. I hope this clarifies things for you.
“You said it, life isn’t fair, and this situation is not fair.”
You may feel it isn’t fair to you, but it IS fair to the great majority of commenters who abide by the rules. My sympathies go with those who abide within the spirit of the comment threads, and don’t make my life more difficult.
“And the original post didn’t post for 3 hours, you stated 2 and I originally stated 4. 3 hours is a lot different from 2.”
This is a misunderstanding. You stated:
I pointed out that it actually took almost two hours longer than your prediction. You submitted the comment at 3:31 pm PST, and I released all three of your comments at about 5:20 pm PST.
“You know you are being more harsh on me than others.”
In the years that I have been a moderator at HA, only about 6 or 7 commenters have been placed on moderation status. I have an algorithm to determine when a person goes off moderation status. I’ll not reveal the alogrithm, but the essence is that I observe comments over a pre-determined period of time. Attempts (or threats) to circumvent the moderation resets the time and may add to the clock under the reasoning that circumvention (or threats of circumvention) does not demonstrate a willingness to abide by the comment policy. Most people are moderated for well under two weeks.
“The HAss Policy is so ambiguous…”
Yet all but a small number of commenters seem to have no difficulties whatsoever abiding by the “ambiguous” policy. Perhaps you could study it some more, and spend time observing conversations in the threads? I don’t know. I don’t understand why you have such difficulties, unless your goal is not really to engage in political dialogue and debate here.
“…the minute you stop moderating comments, you will find that I say something wrong, and you will put me back in moderation at a minutes notice, meanwhile every other asshole here can post what ever they wish and they get a way with it.”
I may put you back in moderation or I may simply delete offending comments. Or you may be banned (HA Comment Policy: “Repeat offenders will be banned.”) But that argues for you to avoid leaving comments that might violate the policy.
“Again, I have some patience, but it will only last so long.”
And then what?
“When and if the time comes when you stop moderating my comments, I have very little faith that you will treat my comments with the same respect as others and we will then find myself in this same position.”
You are correct…you will remain on my “shit list” and your comments will be scrutinized more than others. (HA Comment Policy: “And don’t be surprised to see these standards imposed sporadically and selectively.”)
“It take two to Tango, and you will have to be more considerate for this to work.”
???
But you are limiting my artistic expressions. For instance The Pooper signed off each comment by saying “The Piper”. Why would it be inappropriate for me to sign off each comment with “God hates Heterosexuals”? It would be like my trademark. Would that be unacceptable? And is it because it is offensive to you? What about things that may be offensive to me, like the continued use of fudgepacker? Is it because fudgepacker can be used like the word “the” without being repetitive? I really feel that you dislike what I am saying and that is why you are moderating my comments, where as someone else could basically be posting similar comments to mine, but because they don’t offend you, you do not delete them. You don’t see the hypocrisy of this. All this moderating is only stifling the comments here, and people are not saying what they really want to say.
Gman,
“But you are limiting my artistic expressions.”
So? Why are we obligated to host your “artistic expression?” We aren’t. Go get your own forum for your “artistic expression.”
‘For instance The Pooper signed off each comment by saying “The Piper”. Why would it be inappropriate for me to sign off each comment with “God hates Heterosexuals”?’
One is a signature. The other is an advertising slogan. Every day, HA comment threads are bombarded by dozens to hundreds of advertisements for impotency remedies, Russian women, drugs, pornography, etc., etc. It’s spam…essentially, unwanted advertising. It is disruptive to the discussion and, therefore, isn’t allowed.
“It would be like my trademark. Would that be unacceptable?”
Most likely. The real issue is this: are you primarily here to engaging in political debate and discussion? Or are you primarily here to engage in this “artistic expression” of yours? If you goal is the latter, then take it someplace else. If it is disruptive and makes minimal contribution to the discussion then it won’t be allowed.
“And is it because it is offensive to you?”
If I deleted every comment and/or moderated every commenter that was offensive to me, there wouldn’t be a hell of a lot of comments left, would there?
“What about things that may be offensive to me, like the continued use of fudgepacker?”
Then I recommend you stop using them. Or stop reading the comments of those who use them.
“Is it because fudgepacker can be used like the word “the” without being repetitive?”
???
“I really feel that you dislike what I am saying and that is why you are moderating my comments”
I am moderating your comments because they are not consistent with the comment policy. You are, effectively, a spammer (i.e. an unwelcome advertiser). We don’t allow spam.
“where as someone else could basically be posting similar comments to mine, but because they don’t offend you, you do not delete them.”
This doesn’t make any sense to me. If, as you suppose, I delete your comments based on content, then wouldn’t I also delete the comments of other’s posting “similar comments”?
“You don’t see the hypocrisy of this.”
I don’t because your comment makes no sense.
“All this moderating is only stifling the comments here, and people are not saying what they really want to say.”
Indeed…moderation does stifle discussion. This is by design. We do not permit comments of particular forms (i.e. advertisement, bulk copying of the intellectual property of others, sockpuppetry, excessively disruptive, etc.) and we impose topical bounds for comments in non-open threads. Those are the rules. And this is private property, so you live by the rules or find another party to crash.