PDA

View Full Version : Ann Coulter's weak spot


Jim
November 19th 04, 01:40 AM
Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
issue.
Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.

Jim

elzinator
November 19th 04, 03:15 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>issue.
>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.

The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
shoved down our throats and up our asses.

Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
advertised on the radio the last few days.

Don't want to be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new media.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mind**** America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the idiot nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

-Green Day
---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Jim
November 19th 04, 03:42 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset
>> she
>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about
>>the
>>issue.
>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>
> The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
> wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
> shoved down our throats and up our asses.
>
> Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
> advertised on the radio the last few days.

I'm sure its already been done but I see a bestseller here. Lots of money
in religion. Lose weight..the Jesus way.
W

Don
November 19th 04, 04:02 AM
In article >, says...
>
>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>issue.
>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>
>Jim
>
>
I thought that being a post-op transexual was her weak spot.
Check-out her "adam's apple"

Jim
November 19th 04, 04:08 AM
"Don" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset
>> she
>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about
>>the
>>issue.
>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
> I thought that being a post-op transexual was her weak spot.
> Check-out her "adam's apple"
>
She dont do it for me anymore..she's too damn evil.

Jim

Proton Soup
November 19th 04, 04:50 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:15:26 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>issue.
>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>
>The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
>wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
>shoved down our throats and up our asses.
>
>Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
>advertised on the radio the last few days.
>
>Don't want to be an American idiot.
>Don't want a nation under the new media.
>And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
>The subliminal mind**** America.
>
>Welcome to a new kind of tension.
>All across the idiot nation.
>Everything isn't meant to be okay.
>Television dreams of tomorrow.
>We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
>For that's enough to argue.
>
>Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
>I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
>Now everybody do the propaganda.
>And sing along in the age of paranoia.
>
>-Green Day

Yeah, I heard that the other day. I can only speculate that the
lyrics are what makes it popular. The music is a POS.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Jim
November 19th 04, 04:52 AM
"Usenet Posting" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset
>> she
>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about
>>the
>>issue.
>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
> election.
>
> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
> to a party. Is there such a thing?

Well..you are already sided with the right. Savage is as right as they come.
I like Air America because I'm a liberal. I also like Howard Stern. Dont
think the word liberal is bad. Its pretty good in these times.

Jim

John Hanson
November 19th 04, 05:07 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:50:55 -0600, Proton Soup >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:15:26 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>>issue.
>>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>
>>The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
>>wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
>>shoved down our throats and up our asses.
>>
>>Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
>>advertised on the radio the last few days.
>>
>>Don't want to be an American idiot.
>>Don't want a nation under the new media.
>>And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
>>The subliminal mind**** America.
>>
>>Welcome to a new kind of tension.
>>All across the idiot nation.
>>Everything isn't meant to be okay.
>>Television dreams of tomorrow.
>>We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
>>For that's enough to argue.
>>
>>Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
>>I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
>>Now everybody do the propaganda.
>>And sing along in the age of paranoia.
>>
>>-Green Day
>
>Yeah, I heard that the other day. I can only speculate that the
>lyrics are what makes it popular. The music is a POS.
>
I've been hearing it nearly every day for the last couple of months. I
prefer A Perfect Circle's "Counting Bodies Like Sheep To The Rhythm Of
the War Drums" song.

November 19th 04, 01:44 PM
Usenet Posting > wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>issue.
>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>
>>Jim
>>

> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
> election.

> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
> to a party. Is there such a thing?

Chris Matthews on MSNBC isn't too bad


> --
> Senator Kerry did not approve this message

--
************************************************** *************
Peter Attar
NRC Research Associate
Computational Sciences Branch
Air Vehicles Directorate
Air Force Research Laboratory

Address:
AFRL/VAAC
2210 Eighth St., Bldg 146,225
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7512
e-mail:
phone(937) 255-0057
Fax: (937) 656-7857
************************************************** *************

Will Brink
November 19th 04, 03:05 PM
In article >,
"Jim" > wrote:

> Found it!

Her face.

> She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
> right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
> controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
> literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
> would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
> issue.
> Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>
> Jim
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
November 19th 04, 04:15 PM
In article >,
Usenet Posting > wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
> >right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
> >controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
> > Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
> >literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
> >would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
> >issue.
> >Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
> >
> >Jim
> >
>
> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
> election.
>
> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
> to a party. Is there such a thing?

NPR is about as close as you get.


>
>
> --
> Senator Kerry did not approve this message

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Top Sirloin
November 19th 04, 05:26 PM
Will Brink wrote:

> NPR is about as close as you get.

<coffee spew>


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Will Brink
November 19th 04, 05:38 PM
In article >,
"Jim" > wrote:

> "elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
> >>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
> >>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
> >>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
> >> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset
> >> she
> >>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
> >>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about
> >>the
> >>issue.
> >>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
> >
> > The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
> > wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
> > shoved down our throats and up our asses.
> >
> > Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
> > advertised on the radio the last few days.
>
> I'm sure its already been done but I see a bestseller here. Lots of money
> in religion. Lose weight..the Jesus way.

Already done. http://www.makers-diet.net/


> W
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Proton Soup
November 19th 04, 11:42 PM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:07:54 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:50:55 -0600, Proton Soup >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:15:26 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>>>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>>>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>>>issue.
>>>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>>
>>>The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
>>>wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
>>>shoved down our throats and up our asses.
>>>
>>>Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
>>>advertised on the radio the last few days.
>>>
>>>Don't want to be an American idiot.
>>>Don't want a nation under the new media.
>>>And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
>>>The subliminal mind**** America.
>>>
>>>Welcome to a new kind of tension.
>>>All across the idiot nation.
>>>Everything isn't meant to be okay.
>>>Television dreams of tomorrow.
>>>We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
>>>For that's enough to argue.
>>>
>>>Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
>>>I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
>>>Now everybody do the propaganda.
>>>And sing along in the age of paranoia.
>>>
>>>-Green Day
>>
>>Yeah, I heard that the other day. I can only speculate that the
>>lyrics are what makes it popular. The music is a POS.
>>
>I've been hearing it nearly every day for the last couple of months. I
>prefer A Perfect Circle's "Counting Bodies Like Sheep To The Rhythm Of
>the War Drums" song.

Don't know that one. Sounds like a winner, though.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Proton Soup
November 19th 04, 11:45 PM
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:15:21 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>> >Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>> >right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>> >controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>> > Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>> >literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>> >would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>> >issue.
>> >Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>> >
>> >Jim
>> >
>>
>> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
>> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
>> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
>> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
>> election.
>>
>> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
>> to a party. Is there such a thing?
>
>NPR is about as close as you get.

Prairie Home Companion is not part of NPR, is it?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

ATP
November 20th 04, 02:08 AM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Jim" > wrote:
>
> > Found it!
>
> Her face.
>
And Adam's Apple.

aj
November 20th 04, 02:22 AM
On 2004-11-19, Proton Soup > wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:15:21 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>> >right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>> >controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>>> > Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>> >literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>> >would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>> >issue.
>>> >Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>> >
>>>
>>> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
>>> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
>>> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
>>> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
>>> election.
>>>
>>> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
>>> to a party. Is there such a thing?
>>
>>NPR is about as close as you get.
>
> Prairie Home Companion is not part of NPR, is it?
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

They're the only folks I know that broadcast it.

--
-aj

Don
November 20th 04, 04:22 AM
>Savage is conservative but at least he will blast Bush when he screws
>up, in his opinion. He is not a mindless drone spouting talking
>points. How anyone can listen to Hannity for more than a few minutes
>boggles my mind.

Hannity is funny when he messes up.
from http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080504.shtml

A VERY FRANKS DISCUSSION: Here at THE HOWLER, we’ve dreamed of the day when we
could help our occasional pal, Mickey Kaus. And now, with the author of the
new-improved Kausfiles rejoining the ranks of the sentient peoples, we’re more
than happy to help Mickey out. We refer, of course, to Tommy Franks’ important
discussion with Sean Hannity. The session aired Tuesday on Fox.

And yes, this session was very important, as every DNC talker should be told.
It’s the kind of discussion such talkers can use when they want to refute the
coming attacks—the attacks that will now be made (again) against Kerry’s
post-Vietnam record. General Franks, of course, just finished a stint as
CentCom Commander. And since Franks has known Laura Bush since school days—and
since he’s partial to the president too—Hannity knew that this was a chance to
trash Kerry’s post-Nam public record. You know—a chance to say that he
slandered the troops when he described appalling misconduct in Nam? A chance
to call Kerry a very bad man—a man you can’t possibly vote for?

This was an early line of attack on Kerry, and it’s about to be ginned up
again. So Hannity threw raw meat to Franks, assuming that Tommy would take it
and run. But uh-oh! Franks vouched for the accuracy of Kerry’s remarks. We
hope DNC types will notice.

You know Sean—he has all the moves. Always eager to stir the rubes, he started
by asking Franks this:

HANNITY (8/3/04): I want to play a tape of John Kerry, and I want to get your
reaction to this tape.
KERRY (videotape, Dick Cavett Show, 1971): I personally didn't see personal
atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like
that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in
harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions
in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.
And all of these, I find out later on—these acts are contrary to The Hague and
Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So, in that sense, anybody who
took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg
principles, is in fact guilty.

HANNITY: What does that mean to you?

Hannity seemed to assume that Franks would say Kerry shouldn’t have said that,
or that such conduct never occurred, or that this dude is a very bad man. But
Franks is a soldier, not a pundit—as such, he doesn’t mislead for a living.
Quickly, Sean knew that things had gone wrong. Franks said Kerry’s statements
were right:
FRANKS (continuing directly): I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One
was the lack of leadership of young people like in—in John Kerry's position.
He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that, that activities like
that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did.
Say what? Just that quickly, Franks was off message. But Hannity gave him
another chance. He played one more piece of old tape:
HANNITY: I want to play you another tape of his, where he talks about what
other soldiers did when he was there.
FRANKS: Right.

HANNITY: And then, I'll get your reaction to this. Roll this tape.

KERRY (videotape, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1971): I relived the
absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the
stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off
heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up
the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed
villages in the fashion of Genghis Khan.

HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names.
Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate
for the Democrats.

“But he never told names,” Hannity said, engaging in his trademark
dissembling. (Sean misleads like other men breathe.) Duh! In this testimony,
Kerry was describing statements made by former soldiers in the well-known
“Winter Soldier” investigation. The names of these soldiers were public
record; Kerry didn’t have to list them. But at any rate, Franks again passed
on the bait. Hannity wanted the general to hammer Vile John. But once again,
Franks told the truth:
FRANKS (continuing directly): I don't know. I think Vietnam was—I think
Vietnam was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is
that it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and take
responsibility for the actions of a unit or for—or for your own actions. And
so, I don't—I don't like what I saw. But at the same time, I wouldn't say
that—the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in
Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in, in Vietnam.
Franks did try to help Sean out, suggesting it was unworthy to protest. (In
another answer, he seemed to say that he had refused to engage in activities
that contravened the Geneva conventions.) But again, Franks stated the obvious
truth: “The things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in
Vietnam.” Sadly, everyone knows that such events did occur. But a gaggle of
Manchurian anti-candidates are about to start saying otherwise. Sean hoped
Franks was Manchurian too. But Franks said Kerry’s statements were accurate.
In fact, he said something much stronger—undeniable.
Of course, nothing is “undeniable” now, in a world where your press corps has
walked off its posts. In 1971, Kerry spoke to a Senate committee, made up of
Dems and Reps alike. No one questioned the things he said, because everyone
knew that his statements were accurate. But Manchurian mau-maus are about to
deploy, and they will be pleased to deny the undeniable. Will the Bill Hemmers
challenge them? Frankly, we doubt it. But Franks gave the Dems a key
word—undeniable. Will someone tell Vilsack to use it?

Adam Fahy
November 20th 04, 07:50 AM
ATP wrote:
> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Found it!
>>
>>Her face.
>>
>
> And Adam's Apple.

Leave my apple out of this.


-Adam

John M. Williams
November 20th 04, 05:43 PM
Usenet Posting > wrote:
> "ATP" > wrote:
>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Found it!
>>>
>>> Her face.
>>>
>>And Adam's Apple.
>
>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>it.

Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.

Jim
November 20th 04, 10:10 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Found it!
>>>>
>>>> Her face.
>>>>
>>>And Adam's Apple.
>>
>>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>it.
>
> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.

She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont get
it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.

Jim

PostHoc
November 20th 04, 10:47 PM
Jim > wrote in message
...
>
> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Found it!
> >>>>
> >>>> Her face.
> >>>>
> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >>
> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >>it.
> >
> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>
> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
get
> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>
> Jim

it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
left-plantation

example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom", not
"really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative and
black, in their eyes.

a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without uterus",
and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY women,
as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
liberals.

this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
diversity, tolerance, etc.

one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise

whit

>
>

elzinator
November 20th 04, 10:59 PM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>Jim > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Found it!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Her face.
>> >>>>
>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >>
>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >>it.
>> >
>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>
>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>get
>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>
>> Jim
>
>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>left-plantation

Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
side.

In case you didn't notice......


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Jim
November 20th 04, 11:03 PM
"PostHoc" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Jim > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Found it!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Her face.
>> >>>>
>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >>
>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >>it.
>> >
>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>
>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
> get
>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>
>> Jim
>
> it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
> and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> left-plantation
>
> example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
> jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
> conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
> not
> "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
> claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
> and
> black, in their eyes.
>
> a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
> uterus",
> and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
> women,
> as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> liberals.
>
> this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
> diversity, tolerance, etc.
>
> one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
> it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>
> whit

Point taken Whit.whatever..Coulter is a whole other story ..there isnt a
correlation.

Jim

PostHoc
November 20th 04, 11:07 PM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >Jim > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> >> ...
> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >>it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >>
> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
dont
> >get
> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
tolerance
> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> >left-plantation
>
> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> side.
>
> In case you didn't notice......
>
>

i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
people's gender or race, based on their ideology.


here are the "accepted' norms based on stats

in general...

gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
liberal than conservative

evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative than
liberal

i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
"accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
the most recent

i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals from
accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
being liberal.

so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.

i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly stuff,
but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.

please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
among leftiwngers

whit

> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Jim
November 20th 04, 11:17 PM
"PostHoc" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >
>> >Jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>> >> >>figured
>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>> >> >>with
>> >> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >>
>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> dont
>> >get
>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> tolerance
>> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> >left-plantation
>>
>> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>> side.
>>
>> In case you didn't notice......
>>
>>
>
> i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
> people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>
>
> here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
>
> in general...
>
> gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
> liberal than conservative
>
> evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
> theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative
> than
> liberal
>
> i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
> "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
> for
> being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
> the most recent
>
> i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals from
> accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
> for
> being liberal.
>
> so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
> claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
>
> i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
> stuff,
> but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
>
> please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
> among leftiwngers
>
Closed minded right wing ****** haters will always vote Republican...who
does the KKK vote with...who likes DeLay? I'm sorry..I dont like to be
hateful or bring up these matters...

Jim

John M. Williams
November 20th 04, 11:25 PM
"PostHoc" > wrote:
>Jim > wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Found it!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Her face.
>> >>>>
>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >>
>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >>it.
>> >
>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>
>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>> get it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>
>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>left-plantation
>
>example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
>jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom", not
>"really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative and
>black, in their eyes.
>
>a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without uterus",
>and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY women,
>as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>liberals.
>
>this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
>pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>diversity, tolerance, etc.
>
>one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
>it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise

I've seen this type of thing occur with black police officers,
particularly ones who engage in active drug interdiction.

elzinator
November 20th 04, 11:35 PM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >
>> >Jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >>
>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>dont
>> >get
>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>tolerance
>> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> >left-plantation
>>
>> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>> side.
>>
>> In case you didn't notice......
>>
>>
>
>i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
>people's gender or race, based on their ideology.

Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.

"Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
political affiliations.


>here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
>
>in general...
>
>gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
>liberal than conservative
>
>evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
>theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative than
>liberal
>
>i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
>"accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
>being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
>the most recent
>
>i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals from
>accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
>being liberal.
>
>so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
>claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
>
>i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly stuff,
>but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
>
>please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
>among leftiwngers
>
>whit
>
>> ---------------
>> My give-a-**** meter is broken.
>

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Jim
November 20th 04, 11:36 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "PostHoc" > wrote:
>>Jim > wrote:
>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Her face.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>> >>
>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>> >>it.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>
>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>>> get it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>
>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>left-plantation
>>
>>example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
>>jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>>conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
>>not
>>"really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>>claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
>>and
>>black, in their eyes.
>>
>>a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
>>uterus",
>>and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
>>women,
>>as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>>liberals.
>>
>>this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
>>pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>>diversity, tolerance, etc.
>>
>>one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
>>it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>
> I've seen this type of thing occur with black police officers,
> particularly ones who engage in active drug interdiction.

Its probably natural..hey..if I get on a plane and see an Arab..I"m gonna
give it a thought and be watching him.
**** its reality...those Arabs Muslims are the bad guys.


Jim

Will Brink
November 20th 04, 11:48 PM
In article >,
"ATP" > wrote:

> "Will Brink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Jim" > wrote:
> >
> > > Found it!
> >
> > Her face.
> >
> And Adam's Apple.

Why anyone cares what some skinny blond hag has to say about anything, I
have no idea.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John M. Williams
November 20th 04, 11:56 PM
"Jim" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "PostHoc" > wrote:
>>>Jim > wrote:
>>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
>>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Her face.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>>> >>it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>>
>>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>>>> get it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>
>>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>>left-plantation
>>>
>>>example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
>>>jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>>>conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
>>>not
>>>"really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>>>claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
>>>and
>>>black, in their eyes.
>>>
>>>a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
>>>uterus",
>>>and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
>>>women,
>>>as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>>>liberals.
>>>
>>>this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
>>>pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>>>diversity, tolerance, etc.
>>>
>>>one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
>>>it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>>
>> I've seen this type of thing occur with black police officers,
>> particularly ones who engage in active drug interdiction.
>
>Its probably natural..hey..if I get on a plane and see an Arab..I"m gonna
>give it a thought and be watching him.
>**** its reality...those Arabs Muslims are the bad guys.

You're missing the point. What Whit is talking about is people being
attacked for not being what they're "supposed to be." Slender,
attractive blond women aren't supposed to be arch conservatives. Ann
Coulter is, so Democrats and liberals make silly attacks on her
appearance which they never would make if she was a liberal Democrat.

Black crack dealers expect white cops to bust them, but when a black
cop busts them, they think it is somehow a betrayal.

Log Cabin Club Republicans frequently get the same ****ty treatment
from the rest of the gay and lesbian community.

Speaking of which, I wonder what ever happened to Trace Eggers ...

Jim
November 21st 04, 12:12 AM
I cant beleive this Ann Coulter thing continues. I admit she ****es me off
but she is in the same league as Rush. I really want to have sex with her.
Angry bitter Dem vs Rep sex. I"ll bring her close to orgasm and make her
scream...give me that liberal dick!

Jim

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 12:23 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>I cant beleive this Ann Coulter thing continues. I admit she ****es me off
>but she is in the same league as Rush. I really want to have sex with her.
>Angry bitter Dem vs Rep sex. I"ll bring her close to orgasm and make her
>scream...give me that liberal dick!

The problem is that you find her sexually attractive and are bitterly
frustrated that her political opinions are diametrically opposed to
your own.

Go find some Hollywood actress to lust after. Most of them are on
board with your opinions.

Jim
November 21st 04, 12:29 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
>>I cant beleive this Ann Coulter thing continues. I admit she ****es me off
>>but she is in the same league as Rush. I really want to have sex with her.
>>Angry bitter Dem vs Rep sex. I"ll bring her close to orgasm and make her
>>scream...give me that liberal dick!
>
> The problem is that you find her sexually attractive and are bitterly
> frustrated that her political opinions are diametrically opposed to
> your own.
>
> Go find some Hollywood actress to lust after. Most of them are on
> board with your opinions.

There is no fun in that..Poor Ann..I heard she is dating Fred
Barnes..another conservative. Once you go liberal..you never go back.

Jim

aj
November 21st 04, 01:35 AM
On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>
> Jim > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Found it!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Her face.
>> >>>>
>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >>
>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >>it.
>> >
>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>
>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
> get
>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>
>> Jim
>
> it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
> and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> left-plantation
>
> example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
> jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
> conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom", not
> "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
> claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative and
> black, in their eyes.
>
> a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without uterus",
> and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY women,
> as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> liberals.
>
> this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
^^^
See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
calling these people doesn't bear repeating.

> pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
> diversity, tolerance, etc.
>
> one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
> it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>
> whit

--
-aj

aj
November 21st 04, 01:42 AM
On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>
> elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >
>> >Jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >>
>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> dont
>> >get
>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> tolerance
>> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> >left-plantation
>>
>> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>> side.
>>
>> In case you didn't notice......
>
> i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
> people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>
>
> here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
>
> in general...
>
> gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
> liberal than conservative
>
> evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
> theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative than
> liberal
>
> i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
> "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
> being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
> the most recent
>
> i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals from
> accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race for
> being liberal.
>
> so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
> claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
>
> i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly stuff,
> but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
>
> please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
> among leftiwngers
>
> whit

Which "accepted" left wing groups are describing Condi thus? Obviously
there are innumerable "unnacepted" right wing groups that would levy
far more foulsome epithets her way.

Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
(if undeserved) racist political capital.

--
-aj

Bob Mann
November 21st 04, 01:49 AM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:59:01 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>>Jim > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Her face.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>> >>
>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>> >>it.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>
>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>>get
>>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>left-plantation
>
>Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>side.
>
>In case you didn't notice......
>
You won't get anywhere being reasonable.
You have to viciously attack anyone who doesn't share your ideals
completely and wholeheartedly.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

ATP
November 21st 04, 02:24 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> I cant beleive this Ann Coulter thing continues. I admit she ****es me off
> but she is in the same league as Rush. I really want to have sex with her.

You're also attracted to Rush?

ATP
November 21st 04, 02:56 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Found it!
> >>>
> >>> Her face.
> >>>
> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >
> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >it.
>
> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.

Credentials as what? A lawyer?

Proton Soup
November 21st 04, 03:47 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:35:24 -0000, aj > wrote:

>On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>>
>> Jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Her face.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>> >>
>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>> >>it.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>
>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>> get
>>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>> and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> left-plantation
>>
>> example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
>> jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>> conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom", not
>> "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>> claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative and
>> black, in their eyes.
>>
>> a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without uterus",
>> and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY women,
>> as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>> liberals.
>>
>> this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> ^^^
>See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
>calling these people doesn't bear repeating.

Racists occupy both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

>
>> pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>> diversity, tolerance, etc.
>>
>> one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics, and
>> it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>>
>> whit

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 03:58 AM
"ATP" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> > "ATP" > wrote:
>> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Found it!
>> >>>
>> >>> Her face.
>> >>>
>> >>And Adam's Apple.
>> >
>> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >it.
>>
>> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>
>Credentials as what? A lawyer?

Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.

What did you have when you left Stony Brook?

elzinator
November 21st 04, 04:35 AM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:49:48 -0600, Bob Mann wrote:
>>>
>>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>>left-plantation
>>
>>Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>>side.
>>
>>In case you didn't notice......
>>
>You won't get anywhere being reasonable.
>You have to viciously attack anyone who doesn't share your ideals
>completely and wholeheartedly.

I so don't play by the game rules. Dang, am I outta the game now? Am I
busted?

>Bob Mann
>Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Damn those feathers that get caught in the butt crack...

(sorry, couldn't resist)

BTW, thought of you this am when boarding the train. A huge
contingency of denim-vest/jacket wearing (oddly enough, no leather)
folks (some 'ordinary' looking, others a bit less or more). On the
back of the vests/jackets a big emblem: "Christians and Motorcycles".
Two had monogrammed below "Prayer Team".

I wondered what you looked like and if you wore one of those.....
:)



---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Lucas Buck
November 21st 04, 05:35 AM
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:45:36 -0600, Proton Soup > wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:15:21 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>> >right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>> >controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>>> > Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>> >literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>> >would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>> >issue.
>>> >Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>> >
>>> >Jim
>>> >
>>>
>>> I get so sick of the shills on both sides. Even air america is
>>> starting to **** me off. I find I can really only stomach O'Reilly
>>> and Savage because they have at least some semblance of impartiality.
>>> However, both swung toward shrill partisanship leading up to the
>>> election.
>>>
>>> I want to listen to smart entertaining pragmatists who are not wedded
>>> to a party. Is there such a thing?
>>
>>NPR is about as close as you get.
>
>Prairie Home Companion is not part of NPR, is it?

Nope. His show is under Minnesota Public Radio.

Keillor got so fed up with NPR that when he returned from Denmark and
resumed a radio show (initially called the American Radio Company), he
set up a new syndicator, APR.

APR is now PRI (Public Radio International).

Later, he must've gotten fed up with THEM, too, since he's set up a
new syndicator starting this past season: American Public Media.

ATP
November 21st 04, 01:18 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Found it!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Her face.
> >> >>>
> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >
> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >
> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
>
> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
>
> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?

I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
lot more than getting a degree.

elzinator
November 21st 04, 02:18 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, ATP wrote:
>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Her face.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >
>> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >
>> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
>>
>> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
>>
>> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
>
>I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
>a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
>a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
>qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
>really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
>lot more than getting a degree.

I agree whole heartedly.
Degree letters merely indicate that they completed the minimum
requirements to attain that degree. Not that they are competent or
outstanding in their degreed field.

And I know for a fact that some candidates are pushed through their
program just to get them out (I know of cases at both OSUs and here).
Whereas others have been outstanding in their field with few if any
academic degrees.

Assessing an individual's capabilities by their degree letters is akin
to judging a book by its cover. A superficial and narrow judgment.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Will Brink
November 21st 04, 03:10 PM
In article >,
elzinator > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, ATP wrote:
> >
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >> >
> >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
> >>
> >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
> >>
> >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
> >
> >I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
> >a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
> >a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
> >qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
> >really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
> >lot more than getting a degree.
>
> I agree whole heartedly.
> Degree letters merely indicate that they completed the minimum
> requirements to attain that degree. Not that they are competent or
> outstanding in their degreed field.

"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists are
really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical structure of
DNA

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

elzinator
November 21st 04, 03:20 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>In article >,
> elzinator > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, ATP wrote:

>> >I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
>> >a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
>> >a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
>> >qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
>> >really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
>> >lot more than getting a degree.
>>
>> I agree whole heartedly.
>> Degree letters merely indicate that they completed the minimum
>> requirements to attain that degree. Not that they are competent or
>> outstanding in their degreed field.
>
>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists are
>really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical structure of
>DNA

He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
reasoning capacity.

There are, however, gems in the field.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

aj
November 21st 04, 06:07 PM
On 2004-11-21, elzinator > wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>In article >,
>> elzinator > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, ATP wrote:
>
>>> >I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
>>> >a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
>>> >a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
>>> >qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
>>> >really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
>>> >lot more than getting a degree.
>>>
>>> I agree whole heartedly.
>>> Degree letters merely indicate that they completed the minimum
>>> requirements to attain that degree. Not that they are competent or
>>> outstanding in their degreed field.
>>
>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists are
>>really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical structure of
>>DNA
>
> He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
> become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
> reasoning capacity.
>
> There are, however, gems in the field.
>
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

And outside it.

--
-aj

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 06:24 PM
"ATP" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Her face.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >
>> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >
>> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
>>
>> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
>>
>> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
>
>I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
>a little older.

I hope you do. Really. I've seen that promise often made and never
fulfilled. That might have happened to me if someone hadn't convinced
me to just do it instead of waiting until later.

>WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
>a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
>qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
>really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
>lot more than getting a degree.

I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
interpretation of facts, well researched.

In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.

aj
November 21st 04, 07:00 PM
On 2004-11-21, DZ > wrote:
> elzinator > wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists
>>>are really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical
>>>structure of DNA
>>
>> He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
>> become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
>> reasoning capacity.
>>
>> There are, however, gems in the field.
>
> More like pearls. You have to come from the right environment (shell)
> - e.g. most Nobel Prize winners come from labs of those who won the
> prize. And, some argue, you have to await some years for the
> maturation of the pearl from the pellet of mud:
>
> Middle-Aged Scientists are Most Potent
> Dispelling myths about young scientists | By K. Brad Wray
> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/nov/opinion_041122.html
>
> Is science a young person's game? Many think so; Einstein, Bohr, and
> Kelvin come to mind as confirming instances. Indeed, youthfulness is
> alleged to provide many advantages in scientific research. First, some
> claim that young scientists have more time and energy than their older
> colleagues. Thus, while older scientists are occupied with
> gate-keeping and administrative duties, their younger colleagues
> devote their time to research. As a result, young scientists are
> thought to be more productive than their older colleagues.
>
> Second, some suggest that young scientists are more creative. Things
> that older colleagues consider to be beyond question are more apt to
> be challenged by young scientists. As a result, young scientists are
> alleged to be responsible for the more radical innovations in science.
>
> Third, some suggest that young scientists are quicker than their older
> colleagues with respect to accepting innovations. Old scientists, we
> are told, are especially resistant to innovation, because they are the
> ones responsible for yesterday's innovations that are today's
> orthodoxies.
>
> Underlying these claims is the conviction that young scientists play a
> key role in the process of scientific change. These views about the
> advantages of youthfulness in science probably contribute to making
> science an attractive career to young people. The young are apt to be
> enticed into a career that offers them the opportunity to rise to a
> position of power quickly. In many other careers, leadership positions
> are reserved for older people.
>
> All three of these popular views concerning the advantages of
> youthfulness are mistaken; critical scrutiny of the available data
> reveals a very different picture about young scientists. Before
> proceeding to show this, let me be clear about who counts as a young
> scientist. Some mathematicians and physicists suggest that after the
> age of 30 a scientist is no longer young. These are the sorts of
> people who believe the myths outlined above. I will count as young all
> scientists aged less than 35 years or younger. Scientists 36 to 45
> years old count as middle-aged, and scientists aged 46 years and older
> are considered old.
>
> The available data suggest that the middle-aged scientist is most
> productive and most inclined to make a revolutionary
> discovery. Despite great variation in the output of individual
> scientists throughout their careers, if we examine the aggregate
> output of many scientists, it rises from early in their career,
> reaches a peak in the middle, and then begins to decline thereafter.1
>
> Moreover, though young revolutionary scientists may easily spring to
> mind, numerous revolutionaries have made their significant
> contributions later in their careers [see Percent of Scientists in
> Each Age
> (http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr2004/pdfs/opin_041122.pdf)].
> For example, Galileo was 52 when he discovered that weight and rate of
> fall are independent, and Roentgen was 50 when he discovered X-rays.2
> Pasteur's many significant contributions to the field of bacteriology
> were made when he was between 55 and 58 years old.3
>
> Finally, older scientists are not especially resistant to new
> ideas. In fact, some studies suggest that the older scientists are
> quicker than younger scientists in accepting a new theory. Why then do
> these myths persist?
>
> One reason that young scientists are thought to make more significant
> discoveries than older scientists is because young scientists are
> responsible for a disproportionate number of significant
> discoveries. However, between 1700 and 1960, young scientists also
> constitute a disproportionate number of working scientists. By my
> estimation, throughout that period, scientists under the age of 36
> constituted approximately 45% of working scientists. Science was
> growing at an exponential rate, with the number of scientists doubling
> every 15 years. When we take this into account, young scientists are
> not especially productive of significant discoveries.2
>
> Once we recognize the source of the myth, we realize that good reasons
> justify our thinking that middle-aged scientists would be more
> productive than young scientists. After all, making significant
> contributions to science does not merely require coming up with good
> ideas. One needs resources, both material and social. Scientists
> depend upon a network of colleagues to help them advance their
> research. They also often need access to expensive equipment, and
> these are the sorts of things that middle-aged scientists are more
> likely to have. Hence, young scientists are not the engines of
> scientific change that the popular myth implies.
>
> Young scientists still play a crucial role in science. Unless we have
> a sufficient number of young scientists today we will find ourselves
> with a shortage of middle-aged scientists in the future.
>
> K. Brad Wray ) is at the Department of Philosophy,
> State University of New York, Oswego. References 1. D.K. Simonton,
> Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist,
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
>
> 2. K.B. Wray, "Is science really a young man's game?" Soc Stud Sci,
> 33:137-49, 2003.
>
> 3. K.B. Wray, "An examination of the contributions of young scientists
> in new fields," Scientometrics, 61:117-28, 2004.

It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.

Kids triply so.

--
-aj

aj
November 21st 04, 07:04 PM
On 2004-11-21, aj > wrote:
> On 2004-11-21, DZ > wrote:
>> elzinator > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists
>>>>are really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical
>>>>structure of DNA
>>>
>>> He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
>>> become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
>>> reasoning capacity.
>>>
>>> There are, however, gems in the field.
>>
>> More like pearls. You have to come from the right environment (shell)
>> - e.g. most Nobel Prize winners come from labs of those who won the
>> prize. And, some argue, you have to await some years for the
>> maturation of the pearl from the pellet of mud:
>>
>> Middle-Aged Scientists are Most Potent
>> Dispelling myths about young scientists | By K. Brad Wray
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/nov/opinion_041122.html
>>
>> Is science a young person's game? Many think so; Einstein, Bohr, and
>> Kelvin come to mind as confirming instances. Indeed, youthfulness is
>> alleged to provide many advantages in scientific research. First, some
>> claim that young scientists have more time and energy than their older
>> colleagues. Thus, while older scientists are occupied with
>> gate-keeping and administrative duties, their younger colleagues
>> devote their time to research. As a result, young scientists are
>> thought to be more productive than their older colleagues.
>>
>> Second, some suggest that young scientists are more creative. Things
>> that older colleagues consider to be beyond question are more apt to
>> be challenged by young scientists. As a result, young scientists are
>> alleged to be responsible for the more radical innovations in science.
>>
>> Third, some suggest that young scientists are quicker than their older
>> colleagues with respect to accepting innovations. Old scientists, we
>> are told, are especially resistant to innovation, because they are the
>> ones responsible for yesterday's innovations that are today's
>> orthodoxies.
>>
>> Underlying these claims is the conviction that young scientists play a
>> key role in the process of scientific change. These views about the
>> advantages of youthfulness in science probably contribute to making
>> science an attractive career to young people. The young are apt to be
>> enticed into a career that offers them the opportunity to rise to a
>> position of power quickly. In many other careers, leadership positions
>> are reserved for older people.
>>
>> All three of these popular views concerning the advantages of
>> youthfulness are mistaken; critical scrutiny of the available data
>> reveals a very different picture about young scientists. Before
>> proceeding to show this, let me be clear about who counts as a young
>> scientist. Some mathematicians and physicists suggest that after the
>> age of 30 a scientist is no longer young. These are the sorts of
>> people who believe the myths outlined above. I will count as young all
>> scientists aged less than 35 years or younger. Scientists 36 to 45
>> years old count as middle-aged, and scientists aged 46 years and older
>> are considered old.
>>
>> The available data suggest that the middle-aged scientist is most
>> productive and most inclined to make a revolutionary
>> discovery. Despite great variation in the output of individual
>> scientists throughout their careers, if we examine the aggregate
>> output of many scientists, it rises from early in their career,
>> reaches a peak in the middle, and then begins to decline thereafter.1
>>
>> Moreover, though young revolutionary scientists may easily spring to
>> mind, numerous revolutionaries have made their significant
>> contributions later in their careers [see Percent of Scientists in
>> Each Age
>> (http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr2004/pdfs/opin_041122.pdf)].
>> For example, Galileo was 52 when he discovered that weight and rate of
>> fall are independent, and Roentgen was 50 when he discovered X-rays.2
>> Pasteur's many significant contributions to the field of bacteriology
>> were made when he was between 55 and 58 years old.3
>>
>> Finally, older scientists are not especially resistant to new
>> ideas. In fact, some studies suggest that the older scientists are
>> quicker than younger scientists in accepting a new theory. Why then do
>> these myths persist?
>>
>> One reason that young scientists are thought to make more significant
>> discoveries than older scientists is because young scientists are
>> responsible for a disproportionate number of significant
>> discoveries. However, between 1700 and 1960, young scientists also
>> constitute a disproportionate number of working scientists. By my
>> estimation, throughout that period, scientists under the age of 36
>> constituted approximately 45% of working scientists. Science was
>> growing at an exponential rate, with the number of scientists doubling
>> every 15 years. When we take this into account, young scientists are
>> not especially productive of significant discoveries.2
>>
>> Once we recognize the source of the myth, we realize that good reasons
>> justify our thinking that middle-aged scientists would be more
>> productive than young scientists. After all, making significant
>> contributions to science does not merely require coming up with good
>> ideas. One needs resources, both material and social. Scientists
>> depend upon a network of colleagues to help them advance their
>> research. They also often need access to expensive equipment, and
>> these are the sorts of things that middle-aged scientists are more
>> likely to have. Hence, young scientists are not the engines of
>> scientific change that the popular myth implies.
>>
>> Young scientists still play a crucial role in science. Unless we have
>> a sufficient number of young scientists today we will find ourselves
>> with a shortage of middle-aged scientists in the future.
>>
>> K. Brad Wray ) is at the Department of Philosophy,
>> State University of New York, Oswego. References 1. D.K. Simonton,
>> Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist,
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
>>
>> 2. K.B. Wray, "Is science really a young man's game?" Soc Stud Sci,
>> 33:137-49, 2003.
>>
>> 3. K.B. Wray, "An examination of the contributions of young scientists
>> in new fields," Scientometrics, 61:117-28, 2004.
>
> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>
> Kids triply so.

Er, that came out wrong.

Apologies.

--
-aj

Lyle McDonald
November 21st 04, 07:19 PM
DZ wrote:
> elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>
>>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists
>>>are really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical
>>>structure of DNA
>>
>>He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
>>become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
>>reasoning capacity.
>>
>>There are, however, gems in the field.
>
>
> More like pearls. You have to come from the right environment (shell)
> - e.g. most Nobel Prize winners come from labs of those who won the
> prize. And, some argue, you have to await some years for the
> maturation of the pearl from the pellet of mud:
>
> Middle-Aged Scientists are Most Potent
> Dispelling myths about young scientists | By K. Brad Wray
> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/nov/opinion_041122.html
>
> Is science a young person's game? Many think so; Einstein, Bohr, and
> Kelvin come to mind as confirming instances. Indeed, youthfulness is
> alleged to provide many advantages in scientific research. First, some
> claim that young scientists have more time and energy than their older
> colleagues. Thus, while older scientists are occupied with
> gate-keeping and administrative duties, their younger colleagues
> devote their time to research. As a result, young scientists are
> thought to be more productive than their older colleagues.
>
> Second, some suggest that young scientists are more creative. Things
> that older colleagues consider to be beyond question are more apt to
> be challenged by young scientists. As a result, young scientists are
> alleged to be responsible for the more radical innovations in science.
>
> Third, some suggest that young scientists are quicker than their older
> colleagues with respect to accepting innovations. Old scientists, we
> are told, are especially resistant to innovation, because they are the
> ones responsible for yesterday's innovations that are today's
> orthodoxies.
>
> Underlying these claims is the conviction that young scientists play a
> key role in the process of scientific change. These views about the
> advantages of youthfulness in science probably contribute to making
> science an attractive career to young people. The young are apt to be
> enticed into a career that offers them the opportunity to rise to a
> position of power quickly. In many other careers, leadership positions
> are reserved for older people.
>
> All three of these popular views concerning the advantages of
> youthfulness are mistaken; critical scrutiny of the available data
> reveals a very different picture about young scientists. Before
> proceeding to show this, let me be clear about who counts as a young
> scientist. Some mathematicians and physicists suggest that after the
> age of 30 a scientist is no longer young. These are the sorts of
> people who believe the myths outlined above. I will count as young all
> scientists aged less than 35 years or younger. Scientists 36 to 45
> years old count as middle-aged, and scientists aged 46 years and older
> are considered old.
>
> The available data suggest that the middle-aged scientist is most
> productive and most inclined to make a revolutionary
> discovery. Despite great variation in the output of individual
> scientists throughout their careers, if we examine the aggregate
> output of many scientists, it rises from early in their career,
> reaches a peak in the middle, and then begins to decline thereafter.1
>
> Moreover, though young revolutionary scientists may easily spring to
> mind, numerous revolutionaries have made their significant
> contributions later in their careers [see Percent of Scientists in
> Each Age
> (http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr2004/pdfs/opin_041122.pdf)].
> For example, Galileo was 52 when he discovered that weight and rate of
> fall are independent, and Roentgen was 50 when he discovered X-rays.2
> Pasteur's many significant contributions to the field of bacteriology
> were made when he was between 55 and 58 years old.3
>
> Finally, older scientists are not especially resistant to new
> ideas. In fact, some studies suggest that the older scientists are
> quicker than younger scientists in accepting a new theory. Why then do
> these myths persist?
>
> One reason that young scientists are thought to make more significant
> discoveries than older scientists is because young scientists are
> responsible for a disproportionate number of significant
> discoveries. However, between 1700 and 1960, young scientists also
> constitute a disproportionate number of working scientists. By my
> estimation, throughout that period, scientists under the age of 36
> constituted approximately 45% of working scientists. Science was
> growing at an exponential rate, with the number of scientists doubling
> every 15 years. When we take this into account, young scientists are
> not especially productive of significant discoveries.2
>
> Once we recognize the source of the myth, we realize that good reasons
> justify our thinking that middle-aged scientists would be more
> productive than young scientists. After all, making significant
> contributions to science does not merely require coming up with good
> ideas. One needs resources, both material and social. Scientists
> depend upon a network of colleagues to help them advance their
> research. They also often need access to expensive equipment, and
> these are the sorts of things that middle-aged scientists are more
> likely to have. Hence, young scientists are not the engines of
> scientific change that the popular myth implies.
>
> Young scientists still play a crucial role in science. Unless we have
> a sufficient number of young scientists today we will find ourselves
> with a shortage of middle-aged scientists in the future.
>
> K. Brad Wray ) is at the Department of Philosophy,
> State University of New York, Oswego. References 1. D.K. Simonton,
> Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist,
> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
>
> 2. K.B. Wray, "Is science really a young man's game?" Soc Stud Sci,
> 33:137-49, 2003.
>
> 3. K.B. Wray, "An examination of the contributions of young scientists
> in new fields," Scientometrics, 61:117-28, 2004.
>

It sure seems real easy to form a coherent argument when you only
reference stuff you've already written on the topic.

I think, experientally, older scientists become just as attached to
their long held dogmas as anbody elses, dismissing new data as wrong,
younger scientists seem to approach new data with a more open mind.
Scientists sure tend to stick to their models (even in the face of
overwhelming data) until the next generation comes along and critically
evaluates both (old and new model).

Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
"God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
scientists?

Lyle

Will Brink
November 21st 04, 07:43 PM
In article >,
Lyle McDonald > wrote:

> Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
> that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
> none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
> correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
> "God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
> sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
> to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
> scientists?

And we don't even wanna talk about MDs...

>
> Lyle
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
November 21st 04, 07:44 PM
In article >,
aj > wrote:


>
> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>
> Kids triply so.

And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
divorce.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lyle McDonald
November 21st 04, 07:51 PM
Will Brink wrote:
> In article >,
> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>
>>Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
>>that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
>>none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
>>correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
>>"God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
>>sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
>>to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
>>scientists?
>
>
> And we don't even wanna talk about MDs...
>

or dietitians, or strength coaches, or exercise physiologists, or any
other field which tends to become so married to its own dogmatic
bull****, ignoring any new data that comes along.

Lyle

freshface
November 21st 04, 09:41 PM
> Keillor got so fed up with NPR that when he returned from Denmark and
> resumed a radio show (initially called the American Radio Company), he
> set up a new syndicator, APR.
>

Garrison Keillor's "Praire Home Companion" was never syndicated by
NPR. It was an APR show before he "retired" to Denmark. And Keillor
certainly didn't found APR, though there is no doubt APR owes much of
its success to him.

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 09:46 PM
DZ > wrote:
>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> It sure seems real easy to form a coherent argument when you only
>> reference stuff you've already written on the topic.
>>
>> I think, experientally, older scientists become just as attached to
>> their long held dogmas as anbody elses, dismissing new data as wrong,
>> younger scientists seem to approach new data with a more open mind.
>> Scientists sure tend to stick to their models (even in the face of
>> overwhelming data) until the next generation comes along and critically
>> evaluates both (old and new model).
>>
>> Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
>> that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
>> none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
>> correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
>> "God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
>> sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
>> to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
>> scientists?
>
>I'm afraid you're right.
>
>Life is short and full of misery.

Dukkha.

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 09:57 PM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Jim > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> >> >>
> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> >dont
> >> >get
> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim
> >> >
> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >tolerance
> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
(femininity,
> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> >> >left-plantation
> >>
> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> >> side.
> >>
> >> In case you didn't notice......
> >>
> >>
> >
> >i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
> >people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>
> Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
> your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.
>
> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
> political affiliations.
>

and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.

i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.

the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
left, not the right.

or do you have any EVIDENCE to show otherwise?

whit

>
> >here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
> >
> >in general...
> >
> >gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
> >liberal than conservative
> >
> >evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
> >theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative
than
> >liberal
> >
> >i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
> >"accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
for
> >being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
> >the most recent
> >
> >i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals
from
> >accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
for
> >being liberal.
> >
> >so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
> >claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
> >
> >i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
stuff,
> >but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
> >
> >please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
> >among leftiwngers
> >
> >whit
> >
> >> ---------------
> >> My give-a-**** meter is broken.
> >
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 09:58 PM
aj > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
> >
> > elzinator > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Jim > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> > message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> >> >>
> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> > dont
> >> >get
> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim
> >> >
> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> > tolerance
> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
(femininity,
> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> >> >left-plantation
> >>
> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> >> side.
> >>
> >> In case you didn't notice......
> >
> > i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who
attack
> > people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
> >
> >
> > here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
> >
> > in general...
> >
> > gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to
be
> > liberal than conservative
> >
> > evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
> > theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative
than
> > liberal
> >
> > i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals
from
> > "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
for
> > being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment
is
> > the most recent
> >
> > i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals
from
> > accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
for
> > being liberal.
> >
> > so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
> > claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
> >
> > i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
stuff,
> > but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
> >
> > please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent
as
> > among leftiwngers
> >
> > whit
>
> Which "accepted" left wing groups are describing Condi thus? Obviously
> there are innumerable "unnacepted" right wing groups that would levy
> far more foulsome epithets her way.
>
> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
>
> --
> -aj

again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.

nice

this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic

hth

whit

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 10:01 PM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >Jim > wrote:
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >>it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >>
> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
dont
> >> get it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >
> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
tolerance
> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> >left-plantation
> >
> >example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
:"aunt
> >jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
> >conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
not
> >"really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
> >claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
and
> >black, in their eyes.
> >
> >a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
uterus",
> >and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
women,
> >as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> >liberals.
> >
> >this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> >pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
> >diversity, tolerance, etc.
> >
> >one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics,
and
> >it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>
> I've seen this type of thing occur with black police officers,
> particularly ones who engage in active drug interdiction.

big time.

at one of our riot callouts downtown seattle, several LEFTISTs walked up to
one of the black riot cops (and i **** you not) started calling him the
N-word, and claiming he wasn't really black, etc. for about 5 minutes.
ahhh.... tolerance.

and i note that not a single person who disagrees with me on the above point
has yet to provide any EVIDENCE that i am wrong. just evasive rhetoric

whit

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 10:02 PM
aj > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
> >
> > Jim > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> >> ...
> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >>it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >>
> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
dont
> > get
> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
tolerance
> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> > left-plantation
> >
> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
:"aunt
> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
not
> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
and
> > black, in their eyes.
> >
> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
uterus",
> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
women,
> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> > liberals.
> >
> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> ^^^
> See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
> calling these people doesn't bear repeating.
>

the important point is that you have no evidence i am wrong, so you just
evade.

typical

whit

> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
> >
> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics,
and
> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
> >
> > whit
>
> --
> -aj

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 10:37 PM
"PostHoc" > wrote:
>
>aj > wrote:
>>
>> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
>> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
>> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
>> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
>> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
>
>again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
>
>nice
>
>this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
>xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic

I can't decide if some people don't understand the proposition you're
setting forth, or if they are just avoiding it.

Except for some KKK and neoNazi assholes who refer to anti-racist
whites as "race traitors," I can't think of any rightist slurs that
are equivalent to the many attacks that leftists use to attack
conservative women, blacks, Jews, etc., simply because they don't
"comply" with their expected political affiliations.

John M. Williams
November 21st 04, 10:45 PM
DZ > wrote:
>John M Williams > wrote:
>> DZ > wrote:
>>>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>> It sure seems real easy to form a coherent argument when you only
>>>> reference stuff you've already written on the topic.
>>>>
>>>> I think, experientally, older scientists become just as attached to
>>>> their long held dogmas as anbody elses, dismissing new data as wrong,
>>>> younger scientists seem to approach new data with a more open mind.
>>>> Scientists sure tend to stick to their models (even in the face of
>>>> overwhelming data) until the next generation comes along and critically
>>>> evaluates both (old and new model).
>>>>
>>>> Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
>>>> that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
>>>> none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
>>>> correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
>>>> "God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
>>>> sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
>>>> to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
>>>> scientists?
>>>
>>>I'm afraid you're right.
>>>
>>>Life is short and full of misery.
>>
>> Dukkha.
>
>But does it capture the irony of "short"? Since it is paradoxically
>even more miserable compared to if the misery were intolerably long?

Dependent origination: karma, klesha, samsara. What could be more
ironic than short, miserable, and repeated?

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 11:04 PM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >
> >aj > wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
> >> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
> >> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
> >> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
> >> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
> >
> >again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
> >
> >nice
> >
> >this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
> >xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic
>
> I can't decide if some people don't understand the proposition you're
> setting forth, or if they are just avoiding it.
>

that's a good question. i think cognitive dissonance is kickin' in

> Except for some KKK and neoNazi assholes who refer to anti-racist
> whites as "race traitors," I can't think of any rightist slurs that
> are equivalent to the many attacks that leftists use to attack
> conservative women, blacks, Jews, etc., simply because they don't
> "comply" with their expected political affiliations.

exactly. the KKK and neonazis are a tiny, fringe, and completely out of the
mainstream sample of the population

the leftists that are claiming that condi is an 'aunt jemima', not an
"authentic black", not "really black" and who do the same to colin powell,
or coulter are FAR more numerous, and far more mainstream

that they have the most in common with the KKK is quite ironic. except the
KKK is completely exorcised from the public debate (for good reason), but
these people are offered a seat at the table, or even at the democratic
convention. for pete's sake, aaron magruder who writes the comic "boondocks"
seen in literally millions of newspapers every day, has made part of his
career out of vicious attacks on condi and her "inauthentic blackness"

whit

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 11:05 PM
Jim > wrote in message
...
>
> "PostHoc" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > Jim > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> >> ...
> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >>
> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> >> >>it.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >>
> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
dont
> > get
> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
tolerance
> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
> > left-plantation
> >
> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
:"aunt
> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
> > not
> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
> > and
> > black, in their eyes.
> >
> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
> > uterus",
> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
> > women,
> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> > liberals.
> >
> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
> >
> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics,
and
> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
> >
> > whit
>
> Point taken Whit.whatever..Coulter is a whole other story ..there isnt a
> correlation.
>
> Jim
>

except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
woman.

that's the point

whit

>

Proton Soup
November 21st 04, 11:12 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:04:28 GMT, "PostHoc" >
wrote:

>
>John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
>> "PostHoc" > wrote:
>> >
>> >aj > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
>> >> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
>> >> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
>> >> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
>> >> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
>> >
>> >again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
>> >
>> >nice
>> >
>> >this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
>> >xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic
>>
>> I can't decide if some people don't understand the proposition you're
>> setting forth, or if they are just avoiding it.
>>
>
>that's a good question. i think cognitive dissonance is kickin' in
>
>> Except for some KKK and neoNazi assholes who refer to anti-racist
>> whites as "race traitors," I can't think of any rightist slurs that
>> are equivalent to the many attacks that leftists use to attack
>> conservative women, blacks, Jews, etc., simply because they don't
>> "comply" with their expected political affiliations.
>
>exactly. the KKK and neonazis are a tiny, fringe, and completely out of the
>mainstream sample of the population
>
>the leftists that are claiming that condi is an 'aunt jemima', not an
>"authentic black", not "really black" and who do the same to colin powell,
>or coulter are FAR more numerous, and far more mainstream
>
>that they have the most in common with the KKK is quite ironic. except the
>KKK is completely exorcised from the public debate (for good reason), but
>these people are offered a seat at the table, or even at the democratic
>convention. for pete's sake, aaron magruder who writes the comic "boondocks"
>seen in literally millions of newspapers every day, has made part of his
>career out of vicious attacks on condi and her "inauthentic blackness"

That is the most openly racist comic strip I've ever read.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

Lyle McDonald
November 21st 04, 11:19 PM
PostHoc wrote:
> elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>>>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jim > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote in
>>>
>>>message
>>>
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"ATP" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Jim" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Found it!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Her face.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And Adam's Apple.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>
> figured
>
>>>>>>>>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>
> with
>
>>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
>
> lack.
>
>>>>>>She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>>>
>>>dont
>>>
>>>>>get
>>>>>
>>>>>>it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>>>
>>>tolerance
>>>
>>>>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
>
> (femininity,
>
>>>>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>>>>left-plantation
>>>>
>>>>Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>>>>side.
>>>>
>>>>In case you didn't notice......
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
>>>people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>>
>>Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
>>your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.
>>
>>"Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>>political affiliations.
>>
>
>
> and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.
>
> i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.
>
> the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
> left, not the right.

Yeah, the right has their own entire separate set of bull**** tactics, I
guess.

Or do you consider the lies about Kerry's military records to fall under
the heading of reasonable political startegies?

What about the lies the entire administration has been telling about the
situation in the middle east? Oh, WMD's, err, we made a mistake.

Tho I'm fairly sure that if the dems ran a black or female candidate,
you'd see plenty of racial/sexist bashing. I'd put money on it.

Lyle

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 11:47 PM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in message
...
> PostHoc wrote:
> > elzinator > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >>
> >>>elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jim > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >>>
> >>>message
> >>>
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>"ATP" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>"Jim" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>Found it!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Her face.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>And Adam's Apple.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> >
> > figured
> >
> >>>>>>>>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
> >
> > with
> >
> >>>>>>>>it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
> >
> > lack.
> >
> >>>>>>She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> >>>
> >>>dont
> >>>
> >>>>>get
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Jim
> >>>>>
> >>>>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >>>
> >>>tolerance
> >>>
> >>>>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
> >
> > (femininity,
> >
> >>>>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
prescribed
> >>>>>left-plantation
> >>>>
> >>>>Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> >>>>side.
> >>>>
> >>>>In case you didn't notice......
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who
attack
> >>>people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
> >>
> >>Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
> >>your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.
> >>
> >>"Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
> >>political affiliations.
> >>
> >
> >
> > and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
evidence.
> >
> > i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.
> >
> > the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
> > left, not the right.
>
> Yeah, the right has their own entire separate set of bull**** tactics, I
> guess.
>
> Or do you consider the lies about Kerry's military records to fall under
> the heading of reasonable political startegies?
>

irrelevant to the issue

> What about the lies the entire administration has been telling about the
> situation in the middle east? Oh, WMD's, err, we made a mistake.
>

again, irrelevant. and fwiw, both the 9/11 commission AND the duelfer
report (neither of which was rightwing based) concluded that there were not
LIES.

but it's still irrelevant

> Tho I'm fairly sure that if the dems ran a black or female candidate,
> you'd see plenty of racial/sexist bashing. I'd put money on it.
>
> Lyle

first of all, this is not about dem or repub politics lyle. it's about
leftist tactics, not democrat strategies.

2nd of all, you are full of ****e, lyle.

but on your irrelevant tangent, the repubs have a much better record of
including blacks in the cabinet and government, and for voting for civil
rights (please check the voting records for the civil rights act of 1964)

you can bet all the money you want, you're wrong. the ironic thing is that
even though yuo brought up irrelevancies (since you can't disprove my
point), you ironically proved that you've been taken in by the very same
tactics. if you honestly believe that the repubs are the ones who engage in
race/gender bashing, you need to look at the evidence

but i presented some, you presented none. just empty predictions

whit

PostHoc
November 21st 04, 11:48 PM
Proton Soup > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:04:28 GMT, "PostHoc" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >John M. Williams > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >aj > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The
righties
> >> >> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
> >> >> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
> >> >> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their
perceived
> >> >> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
> >> >
> >> >again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
> >> >
> >> >nice
> >> >
> >> >this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking
about
> >> >xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC
tactic
> >>
> >> I can't decide if some people don't understand the proposition you're
> >> setting forth, or if they are just avoiding it.
> >>
> >
> >that's a good question. i think cognitive dissonance is kickin' in
> >
> >> Except for some KKK and neoNazi assholes who refer to anti-racist
> >> whites as "race traitors," I can't think of any rightist slurs that
> >> are equivalent to the many attacks that leftists use to attack
> >> conservative women, blacks, Jews, etc., simply because they don't
> >> "comply" with their expected political affiliations.
> >
> >exactly. the KKK and neonazis are a tiny, fringe, and completely out of
the
> >mainstream sample of the population
> >
> >the leftists that are claiming that condi is an 'aunt jemima', not an
> >"authentic black", not "really black" and who do the same to colin
powell,
> >or coulter are FAR more numerous, and far more mainstream
> >
> >that they have the most in common with the KKK is quite ironic. except
the
> >KKK is completely exorcised from the public debate (for good reason), but
> >these people are offered a seat at the table, or even at the democratic
> >convention. for pete's sake, aaron magruder who writes the comic
"boondocks"
> >seen in literally millions of newspapers every day, has made part of his
> >career out of vicious attacks on condi and her "inauthentic blackness"
>
> That is the most openly racist comic strip I've ever read.
>

and he gets away with it because he's a "black progressive".

it's amazing. i've heard him in interviews. he really BELIEVES condi and
powell are not REAL blacks

whit

> -----------
> Proton Soup
>
> "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane

elzinator
November 21st 04, 11:55 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:42:41 GMT, DZ wrote:
>elzinator > wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists
>>>are really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical
>>>structure of DNA
>>
>> He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
>> become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
>> reasoning capacity.
>>
>> There are, however, gems in the field.
>
>More like pearls. You have to come from the right environment (shell)
>- e.g. most Nobel Prize winners come from labs of those who won the
>prize.

Regardless, how much of that is politics? You know as well as I that
academics is wrought with 'Good Ole' Boy's Clubs.' They pat each
other on the back. It's rampant in NIH as well.

I personally know one scientist elected to Ntnl Acad of Scientists who
is one of the worse scientists I ever encountered. Yet she was elected
and honored (and for which I refused to clap during her campus
celebration; I have no respect for her, neither do most of the others
in her dept).

Just as actions speak louder than words, so it applies in the academic
field, letters or no letters.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 21st 04, 11:56 PM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:00:44 -0000, aj wrote:

>It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>
>Kids triply so.

There is much truth in that, Grasshopper.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

ATP
November 21st 04, 11:57 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >> >
> >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
> >>
> >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
> >>
> >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
> >
> >I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids
are
> >a little older.
>
> I hope you do. Really. I've seen that promise often made and never
> fulfilled. That might have happened to me if someone hadn't convinced
> me to just do it instead of waiting until later.

I haven't actually been out that long. Probably go back next Fall now that
they have a degree program more suited to my needs. I love going to school,
but I'm not going to miss my kids growing up.


>
> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
> interpretation of facts, well researched.
>
> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.

I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized. Coulter is
entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing up the
wacky congregation is debatable.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 12:01 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:24:06 GMT, DZ wrote:
>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> It sure seems real easy to form a coherent argument when you only
>> reference stuff you've already written on the topic.
>>
>> I think, experientally, older scientists become just as attached to
>> their long held dogmas as anbody elses, dismissing new data as wrong,
>> younger scientists seem to approach new data with a more open mind.
>> Scientists sure tend to stick to their models (even in the face of
>> overwhelming data) until the next generation comes along and critically
>> evaluates both (old and new model).
>>
>> Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
>> that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
>> none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
>> correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
>> "God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
>> sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
>> to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
>> scientists?
>
>I'm afraid you're right.
>
>Life is short and full of misery.

Only if you accept it that way.

"Always look on the bright side of life
whee, whee, whewhewhewhewhe..."

Oh, I couldn't resist a Monty Python reference there....... :)

As the post doc and I agreed the other day, in science there are three
accepted knowns:
Birth, death and broken equipment.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 12:05 AM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:57:53 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >elzinator > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jim > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >> >message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> >figured
> >> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and
ran
> >with
> >> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
> >lack.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her.
I
> >> >dont
> >> >> >get
> >> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jim
> >> >> >
> >> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >> >tolerance
> >> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
> >(femininity,
> >> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
prescribed
> >> >> >left-plantation
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> >> >> side.
> >> >>
> >> >> In case you didn't notice......
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who
attack
> >> >people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
> >>
> >> Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
> >> your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.
> >>
> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
> >> political affiliations.
> >>
> >
> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.
>
> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
> that many weeks ago.
>

that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.

there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
\
> >i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.
> >
> >the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
> >left, not the right.
> >
> >or do you have any EVIDENCE to show otherwise?
>
> I'll refer you to Lyle's response.
>
>

which also does not address the issue.

i expected better than a cheap copout. there is evidence for my claim, and
you have none to counter it, yet you reflexively and prejudicially deny it.
that's called blind ideology, elzi. both the left and the right have their
warts, and i have never claimed otherwise. it does not mean they are the
same in every tactic

the intellectual dishonesty is dissapointing

whit

> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 12:06 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:57:53 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:07:48 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >
>> >elzinator > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Jim > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> >message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>figured
>> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>with
>> >> >> >>it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
>lack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>> >dont
>> >> >get
>> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jim
>> >> >
>> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>> >tolerance
>> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
>(femininity,
>> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> >> >left-plantation
>> >>
>> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>> >> side.
>> >>
>> >> In case you didn't notice......
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
>> >people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>>
>> Then you are truly naive, isolated or unaware of others around you. Or
>> your area is somehow vastly different from the rest of the country.
>>
>> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>> political affiliations.
>>
>
>and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.

Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
that many weeks ago.

>i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.
>
>the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
>left, not the right.
>
>or do you have any EVIDENCE to show otherwise?

I'll refer you to Lyle's response.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 12:07 AM
ATP > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ATP" > wrote:
> > >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> > >> "ATP" > wrote:
> > >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> > >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> > >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> > >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> > >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> > Found it!
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>> Her face.
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> figured
> > >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
> with
> > >> >> >it.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> > >> >
> > >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
> > >>
> > >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
> > >>
> > >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
> > >
> > >I graduated summa cum laude. I'll finish my graduate work when the kids
> are
> > >a little older.
> >
> > I hope you do. Really. I've seen that promise often made and never
> > fulfilled. That might have happened to me if someone hadn't convinced
> > me to just do it instead of waiting until later.
>
> I haven't actually been out that long. Probably go back next Fall now that
> they have a degree program more suited to my needs. I love going to
school,
> but I'm not going to miss my kids growing up.
>
>
> >
> > I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
> > conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
> > interpretation of facts, well researched.
> >
> > In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
> > your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
>
> I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized. Coulter is
> entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing up
the
> wacky congregation is debatable.
>
>
>

coulter is the rightwing's michael moore

the differences are two fold. one, when she makes incendiary comments, she
gets fired. see: national review. when moore does the same ("there is no
terrorist threat" or refers to (in his racially bigoted way) "stupid white
men") he is held up as leftist icon. the other is that she doesn't claim
to represent that which she is not.

moore and coulter are both very funny, and intentioanlly histrionic
propagandists

whit

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 12:08 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>Jim > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "PostHoc" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>> >
>> > Jim > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >>
>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>dont
>> > get
>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>tolerance
>> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> > left-plantation
>> >
>> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
>:"aunt
>> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
>> > not
>> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
>> > and
>> > black, in their eyes.
>> >
>> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
>> > uterus",
>> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
>> > women,
>> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>> > liberals.
>> >
>> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
>> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
>> >
>> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics,
>and
>> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>> >
>> > whit
>>
>> Point taken Whit.whatever..Coulter is a whole other story ..there isnt a
>> correlation.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
>woman.
>
>that's the point

*That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.


---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

John M. Williams
November 22nd 04, 12:18 AM
"ATP" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
>> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
>> interpretation of facts, well researched.
>>
>> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
>> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
>
>I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized. Coulter is
>entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing up the
>wacky congregation is debatable.

And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
documentarian.

Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.

Adam Fahy
November 22nd 04, 12:35 AM
elzinator wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:

>>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
>>woman.
>>
>>that's the point
>
> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.

Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
half-cocked in political threads anyway.


-Adam

John M. Williams
November 22nd 04, 12:35 AM
"PostHoc" > wrote:
>
>coulter is the rightwing's michael moore
>
>the differences are two fold. one, when she makes incendiary comments, she
>gets fired. see: national review. when moore does the same ("there is no
>terrorist threat" or refers to (in his racially bigoted way) "stupid white
>men") he is held up as leftist icon. the other is that she doesn't claim
>to represent that which she is not.
>
>moore and coulter are both very funny, and intentioanlly histrionic
>propagandists

Actually, there is another similarity. Both Coulter and Moore dig up
some interesting facts. They both interpret those facts to outrageous
conclusions, but the facts are often stuff that bear some examination.
For instance, Coulter's re-examination of so-called "McCarthyism"
revealed a lot of undeniable facts that I didn't know because it's
largely ignored by current historians. I didn't buy into her attempts
to sanctify McCarthy, but she successfully established that his
actions had more support in fact than most historians will admit, and
he had no genuine responsibility for many "evils" attributed to him
(including Hollywood blacklisting, which was strictly HUAC and had
nothing to do with McCarthy).

And for what it's worth, the conclusions drawn and accusations made in
"Treason" are no more outrageous than those in "Bowling for Columbine"
and "Fahrenheit 9/11." And, yes, I have seen both of the latter.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >
> >coulter is the rightwing's michael moore
> >
> >the differences are two fold. one, when she makes incendiary comments,
she
> >gets fired. see: national review. when moore does the same ("there is
no
> >terrorist threat" or refers to (in his racially bigoted way) "stupid
white
> >men") he is held up as leftist icon. the other is that she doesn't
claim
> >to represent that which she is not.
> >
> >moore and coulter are both very funny, and intentioanlly histrionic
> >propagandists
>
> Actually, there is another similarity. Both Coulter and Moore dig up
> some interesting facts. They both interpret those facts to outrageous
> conclusions, but the facts are often stuff that bear some examination.
> For instance, Coulter's re-examination of so-called "McCarthyism"
> revealed a lot of undeniable facts that I didn't know because it's
> largely ignored by current historians. I didn't buy into her attempts
> to sanctify McCarthy, but she successfully established that his
> actions had more support in fact than most historians will admit, and
> he had no genuine responsibility for many "evils" attributed to him
> (including Hollywood blacklisting, which was strictly HUAC and had
> nothing to do with McCarthy).
>
> And for what it's worth, the conclusions drawn and accusations made in
> "Treason" are no more outrageous than those in "Bowling for Columbine"
> and "Fahrenheit 9/11." And, yes, I have seen both of the latter.

i saw bowling, not fahrenheit.

i did see fahrenhype 9/11, though.

whit

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:19:59 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>PostHoc wrote:
>>
>> and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.
>>
>> i didn't claim that hypocrisy was not present in both camps.
>>
>> the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
>> left, not the right.
>
>Yeah, the right has their own entire separate set of bull**** tactics, I
>guess.
>
>Or do you consider the lies about Kerry's military records to fall under
>the heading of reasonable political startegies?

What "lies", specifically?

For the most part, Republicans soft-pedaled the issue of Kerry's record
(for example, not mentioning his original Dishonorable discharge and
revocation of his combat awards, later restored only via Carter's pardon).

>What about the lies the entire administration has been telling about the
>situation in the middle east? Oh, WMD's, err, we made a mistake.
>
>Tho I'm fairly sure that if the dems ran a black or female candidate,
>you'd see plenty of racial/sexist bashing. I'd put money on it.
>
>Lyle

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:04:28 GMT, "PostHoc" > wrote:

>
>John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
>> "PostHoc" > wrote:
>> >
>> >aj > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
>> >> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
>> >> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
>> >> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
>> >> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
>> >
>> >again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
>> >
>> >nice
>> >
>> >this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
>> >xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic
>>
>> I can't decide if some people don't understand the proposition you're
>> setting forth, or if they are just avoiding it.
>>
>
>that's a good question. i think cognitive dissonance is kickin' in
>
>> Except for some KKK and neoNazi assholes who refer to anti-racist
>> whites as "race traitors," I can't think of any rightist slurs that
>> are equivalent to the many attacks that leftists use to attack
>> conservative women, blacks, Jews, etc., simply because they don't
>> "comply" with their expected political affiliations.
>
>exactly. the KKK and neonazis are a tiny, fringe, and completely out of the
>mainstream sample of the population
>
>the leftists that are claiming that condi is an 'aunt jemima', not an
>"authentic black", not "really black" and who do the same to colin powell,
>or coulter are FAR more numerous, and far more mainstream
>
>that they have the most in common with the KKK is quite ironic. except the
>KKK is completely exorcised from the public debate (for good reason), but
>these people are offered a seat at the table, or even at the democratic
>convention. for pete's sake, aaron magruder who writes the comic "boondocks"
>seen in literally millions of newspapers every day, has made part of his
>career out of vicious attacks on condi and her "inauthentic blackness"
>
>whit


Plus the fact that the Democrarts named a former KKK member as the first
Democrat in the line of Presidential succession the last time they controlled
the Senate.

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:49:48 -0600, Bob Mann > wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:59:01 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>>
>>>Jim > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Her face.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>>> >>it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>>
>>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>>>get
>>>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>>it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>>>and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>>gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>>left-plantation
>>
>>Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>>side.
>>
>>In case you didn't notice......
>>
>You won't get anywhere being reasonable.
>You have to viciously attack anyone who doesn't share your ideals
>completely and wholeheartedly.

That's exactly what we'd expect a Commie Canadian to say.
;)

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, "ATP" > wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Her face.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >
>> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >
>> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
>>
>> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
>>
>> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
>
>I graduated summa (sic) cum laude (sic).

In what, basketweaving?

>I'll finish my graduate work when the kids are
>a little older. WRT degrees, I respect anyone's accomplishment in attaining
>a degree. I don't believe having a degree alone makes a person uniquely
>qualified to comment on public affairs. I've worked with some people who
>really had academic credentials and standing in their field. It involves a
>lot more than getting a degree.

John Hanson
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:19:59 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>PostHoc wrote:

>>
>> the claim was about this PARTICULAR tactic, which is the province of the
>> left, not the right.
>
>Yeah, the right has their own entire separate set of bull**** tactics, I
>guess.
>
>Or do you consider the lies about Kerry's military records to fall under
>the heading of reasonable political startegies?
>
>What about the lies the entire administration has been telling about the
>situation in the middle east? Oh, WMD's, err, we made a mistake.
>
>Tho I'm fairly sure that if the dems ran a black or female candidate,
>you'd see plenty of racial/sexist bashing. I'd put money on it.
>
The Dems run numerous black and female candidates for office all over
the country. Feel free to cite some of those races.

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 12:51 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:00:44 -0000, aj > wrote:

>On 2004-11-21, DZ > wrote:
>> elzinator > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:10:12 -0500, Will Brink wrote:
>>>>"When you get into science, you quickly realize that most scientists
>>>>are really stupid" - James Watson, discoverer of the chemical
>>>>structure of DNA
>>>
>>> He's right in many ways. Scientists are human, too, and they tend to
>>> become overconfident in themselves, limiting their analytical and
>>> reasoning capacity.
>>>
>>> There are, however, gems in the field.
>>
>> More like pearls. You have to come from the right environment (shell)
>> - e.g. most Nobel Prize winners come from labs of those who won the
>> prize. And, some argue, you have to await some years for the
>> maturation of the pearl from the pellet of mud:
>>
>> Middle-Aged Scientists are Most Potent
>> Dispelling myths about young scientists | By K. Brad Wray
>> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/nov/opinion_041122.html
>>
>> Is science a young person's game? Many think so; Einstein, Bohr, and
>> Kelvin come to mind as confirming instances. Indeed, youthfulness is
>> alleged to provide many advantages in scientific research. First, some
>> claim that young scientists have more time and energy than their older
>> colleagues. Thus, while older scientists are occupied with
>> gate-keeping and administrative duties, their younger colleagues
>> devote their time to research. As a result, young scientists are
>> thought to be more productive than their older colleagues.
>>
>> Second, some suggest that young scientists are more creative. Things
>> that older colleagues consider to be beyond question are more apt to
>> be challenged by young scientists. As a result, young scientists are
>> alleged to be responsible for the more radical innovations in science.
>>
>> Third, some suggest that young scientists are quicker than their older
>> colleagues with respect to accepting innovations. Old scientists, we
>> are told, are especially resistant to innovation, because they are the
>> ones responsible for yesterday's innovations that are today's
>> orthodoxies.
>>
>> Underlying these claims is the conviction that young scientists play a
>> key role in the process of scientific change. These views about the
>> advantages of youthfulness in science probably contribute to making
>> science an attractive career to young people. The young are apt to be
>> enticed into a career that offers them the opportunity to rise to a
>> position of power quickly. In many other careers, leadership positions
>> are reserved for older people.
>>
>> All three of these popular views concerning the advantages of
>> youthfulness are mistaken; critical scrutiny of the available data
>> reveals a very different picture about young scientists. Before
>> proceeding to show this, let me be clear about who counts as a young
>> scientist. Some mathematicians and physicists suggest that after the
>> age of 30 a scientist is no longer young. These are the sorts of
>> people who believe the myths outlined above. I will count as young all
>> scientists aged less than 35 years or younger. Scientists 36 to 45
>> years old count as middle-aged, and scientists aged 46 years and older
>> are considered old.
>>
>> The available data suggest that the middle-aged scientist is most
>> productive and most inclined to make a revolutionary
>> discovery. Despite great variation in the output of individual
>> scientists throughout their careers, if we examine the aggregate
>> output of many scientists, it rises from early in their career,
>> reaches a peak in the middle, and then begins to decline thereafter.1
>>
>> Moreover, though young revolutionary scientists may easily spring to
>> mind, numerous revolutionaries have made their significant
>> contributions later in their careers [see Percent of Scientists in
>> Each Age
>> (http://www.the-scientist.com/images/yr2004/pdfs/opin_041122.pdf)].
>> For example, Galileo was 52 when he discovered that weight and rate of
>> fall are independent, and Roentgen was 50 when he discovered X-rays.2
>> Pasteur's many significant contributions to the field of bacteriology
>> were made when he was between 55 and 58 years old.3
>>
>> Finally, older scientists are not especially resistant to new
>> ideas. In fact, some studies suggest that the older scientists are
>> quicker than younger scientists in accepting a new theory. Why then do
>> these myths persist?
>>
>> One reason that young scientists are thought to make more significant
>> discoveries than older scientists is because young scientists are
>> responsible for a disproportionate number of significant
>> discoveries. However, between 1700 and 1960, young scientists also
>> constitute a disproportionate number of working scientists. By my
>> estimation, throughout that period, scientists under the age of 36
>> constituted approximately 45% of working scientists. Science was
>> growing at an exponential rate, with the number of scientists doubling
>> every 15 years. When we take this into account, young scientists are
>> not especially productive of significant discoveries.2
>>
>> Once we recognize the source of the myth, we realize that good reasons
>> justify our thinking that middle-aged scientists would be more
>> productive than young scientists. After all, making significant
>> contributions to science does not merely require coming up with good
>> ideas. One needs resources, both material and social. Scientists
>> depend upon a network of colleagues to help them advance their
>> research. They also often need access to expensive equipment, and
>> these are the sorts of things that middle-aged scientists are more
>> likely to have. Hence, young scientists are not the engines of
>> scientific change that the popular myth implies.
>>
>> Young scientists still play a crucial role in science. Unless we have
>> a sufficient number of young scientists today we will find ourselves
>> with a shortage of middle-aged scientists in the future.
>>
>> K. Brad Wray ) is at the Department of Philosophy,
>> State University of New York, Oswego. References 1. D.K. Simonton,
>> Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist,
>> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
>>
>> 2. K.B. Wray, "Is science really a young man's game?" Soc Stud Sci,
>> 33:137-49, 2003.
>>
>> 3. K.B. Wray, "An examination of the contributions of young scientists
>> in new fields," Scientometrics, 61:117-28, 2004.
>
>It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.


Amanda Tapping can suck MY chi anytime.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 12:52 AM
Adam Fahy > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> elzinator wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
> >>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
> >>woman.
> >>
> >>that's the point
> >
> > *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
>
> Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
> about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
> self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
> need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
> said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
> talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
> half-cocked in political threads anyway.
>
>
> -Adam

fwiw, i read literally EVERY issue of ms. magazine for a period of about 5
years, and i have seen this type of tripe endlessly repeated (not just
there, but elsewhere). elzi just reflexively doesn't like what i am saying
but she has no FACTS to back up her distaste for it. it is true, and
supported by evidence. hers is a completely kneejerk reaction

whit

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:00 AM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >Jim > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "PostHoc" > wrote in message
> >> link.net...
> >> >
> >> > Jim > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> >> >>
> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> >dont
> >> > get
> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim
> >> >
> >> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >tolerance
> >> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
(femininity,
> >> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
prescribed
> >> > left-plantation
> >> >
> >> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
> >:"aunt
> >> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be
a
> >> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle
tom",
> >> > not
> >> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard
leftists
> >> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE
conservative
> >> > and
> >> > black, in their eyes.
> >> >
> >> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
> >> > uterus",
> >> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
> >> > women,
> >> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> >> > liberals.
> >> >
> >> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is
really
> >> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be
FOR
> >> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
> >> >
> >> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's
politics,
> >and
> >> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
> >> >
> >> > whit
> >>
> >> Point taken Whit.whatever..Coulter is a whole other story ..there isnt
a
> >> correlation.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
> >except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
> >woman.
> >
> >that's the point
>
> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
>
>

you still have no evidence. "ludicrous" in what way? are you saying it's
FALSE, that it's non-indicative of this trend (despite the fact that there
are reams of evidence to the contrary), that it's inconsequential, what?

rightwingers do not, for instance, criticize michael moore as not being an
actual man, for his leftist views, but leftwinger criticize coulter as not
even being an authentic woman , for her leftwing views.

or are you still going to use rhetoric and kneejerks insults, instead of
reasoned discussion, which includes evidence?

whit

> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

John Hanson
November 22nd 04, 01:10 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:35:24 -0000, aj > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>>
>> Jim > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > Found it!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Her face.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>> >>
>>> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>>> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>>> >>it.
>>> >
>>> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>>
>>> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I dont
>> get
>>> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion, tolerance
>> and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> left-plantation
>>
>> example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an :"aunt
>> jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>> conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom", not
>> "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>> claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative and
>> black, in their eyes.
>>
>> a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without uterus",
>> and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY women,
>> as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>> liberals.
>>
>> this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
> ^^^
>See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
>calling these people doesn't bear repeating.

There are blacks and women on the far right. What you think those on
the far right would be saying means absolutely nothing as you have no
idea what they would say. I think you assume what they say based on
the racist remarks you hear from fellow leftists.

Just as I mentioned in a previous post about my buddy's grandfather
who live in the UP, who has voted for Democrats all of his life and
"hates" Republicans and Bush. He stated that the Republicans in
Florida "did that redistricting so the ******s wouldn't be able to
find the polls". Now that statement is both condescending AND racist.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:14 AM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:35:25 GMT, Adam Fahy wrote:
> >elzinator wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >>>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
> >>>woman.
> >>>
> >>>that's the point
> >>
> >> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
> >
> >Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
> >about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
> >self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
> >need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
> >said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
> >talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
> >half-cocked in political threads anyway.
>
> You're right. I misinterpreted his 'point' and thought it was another
> broader issue than the above. That arose from reading responses and
> not the original post (I don't even think my newsreader picked it up),
> and not taking the time to read the entire thread. Regardless of what
> you think, I am very busy and stressed out right now.
>
> Nevertheless, Whit's statement that 'leftists' claim that Coulter is
> 'not a real woman' is dubious. In my discussions with others and
> reading her critics, I have never seen that, nor heard it from
> individuals whom he would categorize as 'leftists.'
>

then, ASK for the cites, and i will provide them

at least, i appreciate the intellectual honesty. you did not read my post,
and then misinterpreted my point based upon RESPONSES to same.

fair enough

the reality is that this IS a valid point, one that nobody has refuted.

i spend AT LEAST as much time reading leftist blogs, magazines, and
newspapers as i do right wing ones. and this point of mine is quite
obvious.

but i appreciate the honesty.

whit

> Why does everyone have to fit into one or the other box, and conform
> to the favorite flavor of hyperbole of the day?
>
> We both know that the media tends to spout hyperbole and misrepresent
> both sides of the political fence: both democrats and republicans.
> Both take shots at the other, stereotype the other, and resort to
> catterwalling, without any reasonable discussion of the real issues.
> Without any real solutions. And hypocrisy swells through the masses
> on both sides of the fence.
>
> This election year I was surrounded with condemnations of
> non-religious people as those 'leftist commies,' etc. People around me
> voted without any real knowledge or understanding of issues. It was
> largely a farce, and in the midst of the' Republican South', not
> subscribing to their ideology was a sentence of unpatriotic, etc. When
> I was up North, those who proclaimed to be 'Rights' (and 'Lefts') had
> similar hypocritical outlooks. They were both one and the same, guilty
> of similar hypocritical condemnations. That is what I took issue with
> in Whit's statement.
>
> What ****es me off, and presses my buttons, is the propensity to
> deposit people in one box or the other without realizing that many of
> the same traits are shared by both. And that there are individuals who
> prescribe to neither party, preferring to address domestic and
> international issues on their own merit, rather than latching onto one
> party or the other. The Republicans are no better than the Democrats
> and vice versa. And that's what this entire nasty election was all
> about.
>
> "Oh, you agree with <insert here>; you're a leftist/right winger!!!"
>
> Self-rightousness? No way. Just a general disenchanted,
> disillusioned, and ****ed off American lately.
>
> I know you don't like me, Adam. And no I don't like discussing
> politics because it ****es me off and makes me angry at my fellow
> Americans. I don't pretend to be fluent in politics, but I do read and
> watch, and I form my own opinions. So you're right. And I will steer
> clear from such topics on this forum. I hope that satisfies you.
>
> Cheerio.
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 01:14 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:35:25 GMT, Adam Fahy wrote:
>elzinator wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>>>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
>>>woman.
>>>
>>>that's the point
>>
>> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
>
>Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
>about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
>self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
>need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
>said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
>talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
>half-cocked in political threads anyway.

You're right. I misinterpreted his 'point' and thought it was another
broader issue than the above. That arose from reading responses and
not the original post (I don't even think my newsreader picked it up),
and not taking the time to read the entire thread. Regardless of what
you think, I am very busy and stressed out right now.

Nevertheless, Whit's statement that 'leftists' claim that Coulter is
'not a real woman' is dubious. In my discussions with others and
reading her critics, I have never seen that, nor heard it from
individuals whom he would categorize as 'leftists.'

Why does everyone have to fit into one or the other box, and conform
to the favorite flavor of hyperbole of the day?

We both know that the media tends to spout hyperbole and misrepresent
both sides of the political fence: both democrats and republicans.
Both take shots at the other, stereotype the other, and resort to
catterwalling, without any reasonable discussion of the real issues.
Without any real solutions. And hypocrisy swells through the masses
on both sides of the fence.

This election year I was surrounded with condemnations of
non-religious people as those 'leftist commies,' etc. People around me
voted without any real knowledge or understanding of issues. It was
largely a farce, and in the midst of the' Republican South', not
subscribing to their ideology was a sentence of unpatriotic, etc. When
I was up North, those who proclaimed to be 'Rights' (and 'Lefts') had
similar hypocritical outlooks. They were both one and the same, guilty
of similar hypocritical condemnations. That is what I took issue with
in Whit's statement.

What ****es me off, and presses my buttons, is the propensity to
deposit people in one box or the other without realizing that many of
the same traits are shared by both. And that there are individuals who
prescribe to neither party, preferring to address domestic and
international issues on their own merit, rather than latching onto one
party or the other. The Republicans are no better than the Democrats
and vice versa. And that's what this entire nasty election was all
about.

"Oh, you agree with <insert here>; you're a leftist/right winger!!!"

Self-rightousness? No way. Just a general disenchanted,
disillusioned, and ****ed off American lately.

I know you don't like me, Adam. And no I don't like discussing
politics because it ****es me off and makes me angry at my fellow
Americans. I don't pretend to be fluent in politics, but I do read and
watch, and I form my own opinions. So you're right. And I will steer
clear from such topics on this forum. I hope that satisfies you.

Cheerio.

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 01:16 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:

>> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>> >> political affiliations.
>> >>
>> >
>> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide evidence.
>>
>> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
>> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
>> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
>> that many weeks ago.
>>
>
>that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
>point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
>
>there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.

See my response to Adam.
And I live in the midst of counter evidence.

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

John Hanson
November 22nd 04, 01:20 AM
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:42:57 -0600, Proton Soup >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:07:54 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:50:55 -0600, Proton Soup >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:15:26 -0600, elzinator
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
>>>>>Found it! She totally stumbled all over herself last night debating those
>>>>>right wing heritage foundation people about the latest Super Bowl
>>>>>controversy. Joe Scarbourough(sp) show.
>>>>> Should have known all along. The conservative dilemma. She got so upset she
>>>>>literally just called liberals bad..(her usual..no surprise).and said she
>>>>>would have to talk to her conservative friends behind closed doors about the
>>>>>issue.
>>>>>Ann! Give me one night to show you how good a liberal can be.
>>>>
>>>>The group bitching most loudly about it is the moral republican right
>>>>wingers. Now that Bush won, we will all have moral righteousness
>>>>shoved down our throats and up our asses.
>>>>
>>>>Now all one has to do to lose weight is read the "Good Book" as
>>>>advertised on the radio the last few days.
>>>>
>>>>Don't want to be an American idiot.
>>>>Don't want a nation under the new media.
>>>>And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
>>>>The subliminal mind**** America.
>>>>
>>>>Welcome to a new kind of tension.
>>>>All across the idiot nation.
>>>>Everything isn't meant to be okay.
>>>>Television dreams of tomorrow.
>>>>We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
>>>>For that's enough to argue.
>>>>
>>>>Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
>>>>I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
>>>>Now everybody do the propaganda.
>>>>And sing along in the age of paranoia.
>>>>
>>>>-Green Day
>>>
>>>Yeah, I heard that the other day. I can only speculate that the
>>>lyrics are what makes it popular. The music is a POS.
>>>
>>I've been hearing it nearly every day for the last couple of months. I
>>prefer A Perfect Circle's "Counting Bodies Like Sheep To The Rhythm Of
>>the War Drums" song.
>
>Don't know that one. Sounds like a winner, though.
>
It's actually a pretty awesome song. It would make and excellent
workout song...especially for a max effort if you are into that sort
of thing.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:25 AM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
> >> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
> >> >> political affiliations.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
evidence.
> >>
> >> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
> >> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
> >> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
> >> that many weeks ago.
> >>
> >
> >that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
> >point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
> >
> >there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
>
> See my response to Adam.

ok

> And I live in the midst of counter evidence.

try opening a magazine, newspaper, or book

whit

>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

aj
November 22nd 04, 01:25 AM
On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
>
> aj > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>> >
>> > elzinator > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Jim > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> > message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> figured
>> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
> with
>> >> >> >>it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
> lack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>> > dont
>> >> >get
>> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jim
>> >> >
>> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>> > tolerance
>> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
> (femininity,
>> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> >> >left-plantation
>> >>
>> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>> >> side.
>> >>
>> >> In case you didn't notice......
>> >
>> > i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who
> attack
>> > people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>> >
>> >
>> > here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
>> >
>> > in general...
>> >
>> > gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to
> be
>> > liberal than conservative
>> >
>> > evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
>> > theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative
> than
>> > liberal
>> >
>> > i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals
> from
>> > "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
> for
>> > being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment
> is
>> > the most recent
>> >
>> > i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals
> from
>> > accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
> for
>> > being liberal.
>> >
>> > so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
>> > claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
>> >
>> > i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
> stuff,
>> > but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
>> >
>> > please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent
> as
>> > among leftiwngers
>> >
>> > whit
>>
>> Which "accepted" left wing groups are describing Condi thus? Obviously
>> there are innumerable "unnacepted" right wing groups that would levy
>> far more foulsome epithets her way.
>>
>> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
>> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
>> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
>> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
>> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
>>
>> --
>> -aj
>
> again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
>
> nice

What are you talking about? You provided the evidence yourself.

> this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
> xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC tactic
>
> hth
>
> whit

Sorry, where's your pattern of behavior from "accepted leftist" sources?

--
-aj

aj
November 22nd 04, 01:27 AM
On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
>
> aj > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>> >
>> > Jim > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
>> >> >>it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >>
>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> dont
>> > get
>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >>
>> >> Jim
>> >
>> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> tolerance
>> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>> > left-plantation
>> >
>> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
>:"aunt
>> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be a
>> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle tom",
> not
>> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard leftists
>> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE conservative
> and
>> > black, in their eyes.
>> >
>> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
> uterus",
>> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
> women,
>> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>> > liberals.
>> >
>> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is really
>> ^^^
>> See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
>> calling these people doesn't bear repeating.
>>
>
> the important point is that you have no evidence i am wrong, so you just
> evade.

Are you mad? What am I evading?

I said that you were correct, I just emphasized that the
parenthenetical qualifier was *why* you were correct.

> typical

of what or whom, Mr. grumpy pants?

> whit
>
>> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be FOR
>> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
>> >
>> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's politics,
> and
>> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
>> >
>> > whit
>>
>> --
>> -aj


--
-aj

aj
November 22nd 04, 01:29 AM
On 2004-11-22, PostHoc > wrote:
>
> Adam Fahy > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> elzinator wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>> >>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
>> >>woman.
>> >>
>> >>that's the point
>> >
>> > *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
>>
>> Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
>> about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
>> self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
>> need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
>> said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
>> talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
>> half-cocked in political threads anyway.
>>
>>
>> -Adam
>
> fwiw, i read literally EVERY issue of ms. magazine for a period of about 5
> years, and i have seen this type of tripe endlessly repeated (not just
> there, but elsewhere). elzi just reflexively doesn't like what i am saying
> but she has no FACTS to back up her distaste for it. it is true, and
> supported by evidence. hers is a completely kneejerk reaction
>
> whit

You must have an enormous magazine reading schedule.

Do you do surveillance in your LE work?

--
-aj

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:34 AM
aj > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-11-22, PostHoc > wrote:
> >
> > Adam Fahy > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> elzinator wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >>
> >> >>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a
real
> >> >>woman.
> >> >>
> >> >>that's the point
> >> >
> >> > *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
> >>
> >> Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being
talked
> >> about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your
tangental
> >> self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
> >> need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
> >> said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do
than
> >> talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
> >> half-cocked in political threads anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Adam
> >
> > fwiw, i read literally EVERY issue of ms. magazine for a period of about
5
> > years, and i have seen this type of tripe endlessly repeated (not just
> > there, but elsewhere). elzi just reflexively doesn't like what i am
saying
> > but she has no FACTS to back up her distaste for it. it is true, and
> > supported by evidence. hers is a completely kneejerk reaction
> >
> > whit
>
> You must have an enormous magazine reading schedule.
>
> Do you do surveillance in your LE work?
>

i quite often do, but this was in my high school years.

whit

> --
> -aj

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:35 AM
aj > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
> >
> > aj > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jim > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> > message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> >> >>
> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
> > dont
> >> > get
> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim
> >> >
> >> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> > tolerance
> >> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
(femininity,
> >> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
prescribed
> >> > left-plantation
> >> >
> >> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
> >:"aunt
> >> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be
a
> >> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle
tom",
> > not
> >> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard
leftists
> >> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE
conservative
> > and
> >> > black, in their eyes.
> >> >
> >> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
> > uterus",
> >> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
> > women,
> >> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
> >> > liberals.
> >> >
> >> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is
really
> >> ^^^
> >> See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
> >> calling these people doesn't bear repeating.
> >>
> >
> > the important point is that you have no evidence i am wrong, so you just
> > evade.
>
> Are you mad? What am I evading?
>
> I said that you were correct, I just emphasized that the
> parenthenetical qualifier was *why* you were correct.
>
> > typical
>
> of what or whom, Mr. grumpy pants?
>

my bad. i misread your post

whit

> > whit
> >
> >> > pretty sad, and incredibly hypocritical from those who claim to be
FOR
> >> > diversity, tolerance, etc.
> >> >
> >> > one's gender, race, femininity etc. are independant of one's
politics,
> > and
> >> > it is immensely offensive and bigoted to claim otherwise
> >> >
> >> > whit
> >>
> >> --
> >> -aj
>
>
> --
> -aj

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 01:35 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:14:19 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:35:25 GMT, Adam Fahy wrote:
>> >elzinator wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>> >
>> >>>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a real
>> >>>woman.
>> >>>
>> >>>that's the point
>> >>
>> >> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
>> >
>> >Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being talked
>> >about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your tangental
>> >self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
>> >need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is being
>> >said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do than
>> >talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
>> >half-cocked in political threads anyway.
>>
>> You're right. I misinterpreted his 'point' and thought it was another
>> broader issue than the above. That arose from reading responses and
>> not the original post (I don't even think my newsreader picked it up),
>> and not taking the time to read the entire thread. Regardless of what
>> you think, I am very busy and stressed out right now.
>>
>> Nevertheless, Whit's statement that 'leftists' claim that Coulter is
>> 'not a real woman' is dubious. In my discussions with others and
>> reading her critics, I have never seen that, nor heard it from
>> individuals whom he would categorize as 'leftists.'
>>
>
>then, ASK for the cites, and i will provide them

I think I can trust you well enough to take your word for it (or
believe that you believe what you say). Regardless, even the most
adamant Coulter critics I've talked to never proclaimed that she was
'not a woman.' And I suspect they would laugh at such as statement.

But let me ask you this: do you really, truly believe that this is
shared by all whom claim to be of the 'left'?

That would be the same as me believing that all 'Right wingers'
believe that non-religious persons are going to 'burn in Hell'.
(despite that I was told that very diction by two individual people
close to election time who proclaimed to be Right-wing, Bush-
supporting, Patriotic Americans)

>at least, i appreciate the intellectual honesty. you did not read my post,
>and then misinterpreted my point based upon RESPONSES to same.
>
>fair enough
>
>the reality is that this IS a valid point, one that nobody has refuted.
>
>i spend AT LEAST as much time reading leftist blogs, magazines, and
>newspapers as i do right wing ones. and this point of mine is quite
>obvious.

And I still wonder how much of that is media hyperbole.

But that's the end of my involvement here. I don't want to appear
'self-rightous' or anything.

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 01:37 AM
aj > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
> >
> > aj > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > elzinator > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jim > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> > figured
> >> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and
ran
> > with
> >> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
> > lack.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her.
I
> >> > dont
> >> >> >get
> >> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jim
> >> >> >
> >> >> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >> > tolerance
> >> >> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
> > (femininity,
> >> >> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
prescribed
> >> >> >left-plantation
> >> >>
> >> >> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
> >> >> side.
> >> >>
> >> >> In case you didn't notice......
> >> >
> >> > i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who
> > attack
> >> > people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
> >> >
> >> > in general...
> >> >
> >> > gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely
to
> > be
> >> > liberal than conservative
> >> >
> >> > evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically,
christian
> >> > theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be
conservative
> > than
> >> > liberal
> >> >
> >> > i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals
> > from
> >> > "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or
race
> > for
> >> > being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima
comment
> > is
> >> > the most recent
> >> >
> >> > i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals
> > from
> >> > accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or
race
> > for
> >> > being liberal.
> >> >
> >> > so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
> >> > claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
> >> >
> >> > i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
> > stuff,
> >> > but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
> >> >
> >> > please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as
frequent
> > as
> >> > among leftiwngers
> >> >
> >> > whit
> >>
> >> Which "accepted" left wing groups are describing Condi thus? Obviously
> >> there are innumerable "unnacepted" right wing groups that would levy
> >> far more foulsome epithets her way.
> >>
> >> Of course, in reality, both "sides" are fairly xenophobic. The righties
> >> just realise that their extremists come off so ugly that they can't
> >> afford to misstep in that direction. ASSuming you have some validty
> >> here, the leftists xenophobes are probably leveraging their perceived
> >> (if undeserved) racist political capital.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -aj
> >
> > again, failure to provide evidence. evasion noted.
> >
> > nice
>
> What are you talking about? You provided the evidence yourself.
>

my bad. ialready said so in the other post

whit

> > this PARTICULAR TACTIC is a province of the left. i'm not talking about
> > xenophobia or hypocrisy IN GENERAL. i am talking about a SPECIFIC
tactic
> >
> > hth
> >
> > whit
>
> Sorry, where's your pattern of behavior from "accepted leftist" sources?
>
> --
> -aj

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 01:38 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:25:09 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>> >> >> political affiliations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
>evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
>> >> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
>> >> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
>> >> that many weeks ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> >that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
>> >point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
>> >
>> >there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
>>
>> See my response to Adam.
>
>ok
>
>> And I live in the midst of counter evidence.
>
>try opening a magazine, newspaper, or book

Uh, I do, thanks.

---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

elzinator
November 22nd 04, 01:40 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:35:23 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>
>aj > wrote in message
...
>> On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
>> >
>> > aj > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Jim > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> > message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Her face.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>figured
>> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>with
>> >> >> >>it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
>lack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>> > dont
>> >> > get
>> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jim
>> >> >
>> >> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>> > tolerance
>> >> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
>(femininity,
>> >> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
>prescribed
>> >> > left-plantation
>> >> >
>> >> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called an
>> >:"aunt
>> >> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to be
>a
>> >> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle
>tom",
>> > not
>> >> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard
>leftists
>> >> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE
>conservative
>> > and
>> >> > black, in their eyes.
>> >> >
>> >> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as "without
>> > uterus",
>> >> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not REALLY
>> > women,
>> >> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to be
>> >> > liberals.
>> >> >
>> >> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is
>really
>> >> ^^^
>> >> See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would be
>> >> calling these people doesn't bear repeating.
>> >>
>> >
>> > the important point is that you have no evidence i am wrong, so you just
>> > evade.
>>
>> Are you mad? What am I evading?
>>
>> I said that you were correct, I just emphasized that the
>> parenthenetical qualifier was *why* you were correct.
>>
>> > typical
>>
>> of what or whom, Mr. grumpy pants?
>>
>
>my bad. i misread your post
>
>whit

Gee, I guess that happens to the best of us, aye?

ATP
November 22nd 04, 01:52 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >
> >coulter is the rightwing's michael moore
> >
> >the differences are two fold. one, when she makes incendiary comments,
she
> >gets fired. see: national review. when moore does the same ("there is
no
> >terrorist threat" or refers to (in his racially bigoted way) "stupid
white
> >men") he is held up as leftist icon. the other is that she doesn't
claim
> >to represent that which she is not.
> >
> >moore and coulter are both very funny, and intentioanlly histrionic
> >propagandists
>
> Actually, there is another similarity. Both Coulter and Moore dig up
> some interesting facts. They both interpret those facts to outrageous
> conclusions, but the facts are often stuff that bear some examination.
> For instance, Coulter's re-examination of so-called "McCarthyism"
> revealed a lot of undeniable facts that I didn't know because it's
> largely ignored by current historians. I didn't buy into her attempts
> to sanctify McCarthy, but she successfully established that his
> actions had more support in fact than most historians will admit,

many of his targets were in fact guilty. I'm not sure that historians per se
are the ones that won't admit it, or if it's the "popular historical
version" of events that has omitted that fact.

ATP
November 22nd 04, 01:54 AM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, "ATP" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Found it!
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Her face.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
figured
> >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
with
> >> >> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
> >> >
> >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
> >>
> >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
> >>
> >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
> >
> >I graduated summa (sic) cum laude (sic).
>
I'm not sure what your point is. You can't spell, perhaps?

Pete
November 22nd 04, 04:44 AM
Usenet Posting wrote:

> She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who figured
> out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran with
> it.

Face it. She's better looking than any woman YOU have ever laid.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

John Hanson
November 22nd 04, 05:38 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:21:27 GMT, DZ
> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>elzinator > wrote:
>>>Life is short and full of misery.
>>
>> Only if you accept it that way.
>>
>> "Always look on the bright side of life
>> whee, whee, whewhewhewhewhe..."
>>
>> Oh, I couldn't resist a Monty Python reference there....... :)
>>
>> As the post doc and I agreed the other day, in science there are three
>> accepted knowns:
>> Birth, death and broken equipment.
>
>One less for me. I stopped using any equipment with the collapse of
>Soviet Union. Except computers which are cheap. Back then it was
>partly lack of funds and partly misconception about enlightenment
>associated with doing stuff on paper instead of in the lab. Then I
>also deliberately and gradually got rid of commercial software making
>sure I can do everything I need using GNU.
>
GNU? Is that Unix?
;-)

Adam Fahy
November 22nd 04, 05:39 AM
PostHoc wrote:

> i did see fahrenhype 9/11, though.

I can only take so much of Dick Morris (not much at all), but I liked
the first ~10 mins in 'hype, regarding the Florida classroom where Bush
was during the 9/11 attacks...


-Adam

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 06:21 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:54:20 GMT, "ATP" > wrote:

>
>"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, "ATP" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>> >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> > Found it!
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Her face.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>figured
>> >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>with
>> >> >> >it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>> >> >
>> >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
>> >>
>> >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
>> >>
>> >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
>> >
>> >I graduated summa (sic) cum laude (sic).
>>
>I'm not sure what your point is. You can't spell, perhaps?

No, YOU can't. It's "Summa cum Laude", as you should know had you
actually earned such a distinction.

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 06:26 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:25:09 GMT, "PostHoc" > wrote:

>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>> >> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>> >> >> political affiliations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
>evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
>> >> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
>> >> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
>> >> that many weeks ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> >that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
>> >point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
>> >
>> >there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
>>
>> See my response to Adam.
>
>ok
>
>> And I live in the midst of counter evidence.
>
>try opening a magazine, newspaper, or book
>
>whit

Funny thing is, if someone tries to make bogus scientific arguments here
like she is making bogus political arguments, she is among the first to
jump on that person.

If only she'd apply the same rigorous critical analysis
to her sources of political information as she does for scientific
information...

For example, Elzi, do you honestly think Texas was better run back in the days
of total Democrat control (Ann Richards w/ a Democrat legislature) than it is
now? If so, for what specific reasons? Discuss, but keep your arguments
referenceable.

Lucas Buck
November 22nd 04, 06:26 AM
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:38:44 -0600, elzinator > wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:25:09 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>
>>elzinator > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
>>> >> >> political affiliations.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
>>evidence.
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
>>> >> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
>>> >> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
>>> >> that many weeks ago.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
>>> >point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
>>> >
>>> >there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
>>>
>>> See my response to Adam.
>>
>>ok
>>
>>> And I live in the midst of counter evidence.
>>
>>try opening a magazine, newspaper, or book
>
>Uh, I do, thanks.

But do more than look at the pictures of guy's butts.

Adam Fahy
November 22nd 04, 07:17 AM
elzinator wrote:

> You're right. I misinterpreted his 'point' and thought it was another
> broader issue than the above. That arose from reading responses and
> not the original post (I don't even think my newsreader picked it up),
> and not taking the time to read the entire thread. Regardless of what
> you think, I am very busy and stressed out right now.

K, no problem.


> Nevertheless, Whit's statement that 'leftists' claim that Coulter is
> 'not a real woman' is dubious. In my discussions with others and
> reading her critics, I have never seen that, nor heard it from
> individuals whom he would categorize as 'leftists.'

IME someone invariably makes some comment about her "Adam's apple" (like
someone did in this thread), or something else about her looking like a
man, or makes some hypersexist comment like she just needs a good
"liberal dicking" and she'll return to her senses, I assume. Reaction
to her specifically reminds me of many people's reactions to lesbians,
which I guess makes sense if you see female conservatives as defying the
standard socialized gender roles, characteristics, or behavior we expect
of them.


> Why does everyone have to fit into one or the other box, and conform
> to the favorite flavor of hyperbole of the day?

People don't necessarily. Left and right, conservative and liberal are
binary terms for multi-dimensional intertwinings of position and
sentiment. Still, like many generalizations, they hold solid grains of
truth, possibly because they tend to point to some amorphous underlying
assumptions that drive people's thought and decision -making processes.


-Adam

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 02:25 PM
In article >,
Usenet Posting > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:44:27 -0500, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > aj > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
> >>
> >> Kids triply so.
> >
> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
> >divorce.
>
> Not that you are bitterer or anything...

Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
seems designed to make men a pay day for women).

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 02:28 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> "PostHoc" > wrote:
> >
> >coulter is the rightwing's michael moore
> >
> >the differences are two fold. one, when she makes incendiary comments, she
> >gets fired. see: national review. when moore does the same ("there is no
> >terrorist threat" or refers to (in his racially bigoted way) "stupid white
> >men") he is held up as leftist icon. the other is that she doesn't claim
> >to represent that which she is not.
> >
> >moore and coulter are both very funny, and intentioanlly histrionic
> >propagandists
>
> Actually, there is another similarity.

Yes, they are both fugly!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
November 22nd 04, 02:59 PM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:50:17 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:25:37 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:44:27 -0500, Will Brink
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article >,
>>> > aj > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>>> >>
>>> >> Kids triply so.
>>> >
>>> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
>>> >divorce.
>>>
>>> Not that you are bitterer or anything...
>>
>>Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
>>seems designed to make men a pay day for women).
>
>Well, there was a time when it was actually a lot harder to even get
>divorced at all. In fact, I read some rumblings from conservatives
>that once they get "them thar damn faggits" they are coming after the
>casual devorcer too. Ozzie and Harriet WILL rise again!

I'm betting you just made that up.

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 04:06 PM
In article >,
Usenet Posting > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:25:37 -0500, Will Brink
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:44:27 -0500, Will Brink
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > aj > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kids triply so.
> >> >
> >> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
> >> >divorce.
> >>
> >> Not that you are bitterer or anything...
> >
> >Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
> >seems designed to make men a pay day for women).
>
> Well, there was a time when it was actually a lot harder to even get
> divorced at all. In fact, I read some rumblings from conservatives
> that once they get "them thar damn faggits" they are coming after the
> casual devorcer too. Ozzie and Harriet WILL rise again!

And Ozzie will go back to banging the next door neighbors daughter as
the sexually repressed generally do.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
November 22nd 04, 04:08 PM
In article >,
Lyle McDonald > wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dragging Einstein up as an example in the above actually demonstrates
> >>that, rather than the converse. After introducing relativity (which
> >>none of the old guard accepted: they KNEW that Newtonian physics was
> >>correct), he himself REFUSED to accept quantum physics (he KNEW that
> >>"God does not play dice with the universe"). No amount of data would
> >>sway him, he was locked into his belief. If one of the smartest humans
> >>to ever walk the earth can be that stubborn, what hope is there for mos
> >>scientists?
> >
> >
> > And we don't even wanna talk about MDs...
> >
>
> or dietitians, or strength coaches, or exercise physiologists, or any
> other field which tends to become so married to its own dogmatic
> bull****, ignoring any new data that comes along.

Agreed, though I still think MDs top the list as a rule. No one beats
them for that combination of arrogance and ignorance.

>
> Lyle
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 05:05 PM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:35:23 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >aj > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2004-11-21, PostHoc > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > aj > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On 2004-11-20, PostHoc > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jim > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> > Found it!
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Her face.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> >figured
> >> >> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and
ran
> >with
> >> >> >> >>it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
> >lack.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her.
I
> >> > dont
> >> >> > get
> >> >> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jim
> >> >> >
> >> >> > it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
> >> > tolerance
> >> >> > and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence
> >(femininity,
> >> >> > gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the
> >prescribed
> >> >> > left-plantation
> >> >> >
> >> >> > example: colin powell and condoleeza rice. rice has been called
an
> >> >:"aunt
> >> >> > jemima", not an "authentic black person" etc. because she dares to
be
> >a
> >> >> > conservative black. ditto for colin who has been called an "uncle
> >tom",
> >> > not
> >> >> > "really black" etc. i can't tell you how many times i've heard
> >leftists
> >> >> > claim that colin is NOT a black man. because you can't BE
> >conservative
> >> > and
> >> >> > black, in their eyes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a famous feminist once referred to a conservative woman as
"without
> >> > uterus",
> >> >> > and any number of conservative women have been attacked as not
REALLY
> >> > women,
> >> >> > as men in disguise, as inauthentic women, etc. for daring not to
be
> >> >> > liberals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > this trend is consistent among so many on the (far) left, it is
> >really
> >> >> ^^^
> >> >> See, that's the important part. What those on the (far) right would
be
> >> >> calling these people doesn't bear repeating.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > the important point is that you have no evidence i am wrong, so you
just
> >> > evade.
> >>
> >> Are you mad? What am I evading?
> >>
> >> I said that you were correct, I just emphasized that the
> >> parenthenetical qualifier was *why* you were correct.
> >>
> >> > typical
> >>
> >> of what or whom, Mr. grumpy pants?
> >>
> >
> >my bad. i misread your post
> >
> >whit
>
> Gee, I guess that happens to the best of us, aye?
>

yes. and even to me! :l

whit

PostHoc
November 22nd 04, 05:05 PM
elzinator > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:14:19 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >
> >elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:35:25 GMT, Adam Fahy wrote:
> >> >elzinator wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:05:06 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>except that leftists consistently try to claim that she is not a
real
> >> >>>woman.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>that's the point
> >> >>
> >> >> *That's* your point??? Your point is ludicrous.
> >> >
> >> >Why are you arguing anything if you don't even know what is being
talked
> >> >about, and have nothing to add to the conversation except your
tangental
> >> >self-righteousness? Whit is making a /specific/ point. You feel the
> >> >need to reflexively attack him without even understanding what is
being
> >> >said. What's that all about? You say you have better things to do
than
> >> >talk politics, but apparently that doesn't prevent you from going off
> >> >half-cocked in political threads anyway.
> >>
> >> You're right. I misinterpreted his 'point' and thought it was another
> >> broader issue than the above. That arose from reading responses and
> >> not the original post (I don't even think my newsreader picked it up),
> >> and not taking the time to read the entire thread. Regardless of what
> >> you think, I am very busy and stressed out right now.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, Whit's statement that 'leftists' claim that Coulter is
> >> 'not a real woman' is dubious. In my discussions with others and
> >> reading her critics, I have never seen that, nor heard it from
> >> individuals whom he would categorize as 'leftists.'
> >>
> >
> >then, ASK for the cites, and i will provide them
>
> I think I can trust you well enough to take your word for it (or
> believe that you believe what you say). Regardless, even the most
> adamant Coulter critics I've talked to never proclaimed that she was
> 'not a woman.' And I suspect they would laugh at such as statement.
>
> But let me ask you this: do you really, truly believe that this is
> shared by all whom claim to be of the 'left'?
>

of course not. saying something is a tactic nearly exclusively OF the left,
does not imply for a second that ALL leftists do this

that's not a logical conclusion.

frankly, most don't

but OF those type of criticisms, they come nearly exclusively FROM the left,
and are near absent FROM the right

that's the point

that's what makes it a tactic of the left

whit

> That would be the same as me believing that all 'Right wingers'
> believe that non-religious persons are going to 'burn in Hell'.
> (despite that I was told that very diction by two individual people
> close to election time who proclaimed to be Right-wing, Bush-
> supporting, Patriotic Americans)
>
> >at least, i appreciate the intellectual honesty. you did not read my
post,
> >and then misinterpreted my point based upon RESPONSES to same.
> >
> >fair enough
> >
> >the reality is that this IS a valid point, one that nobody has refuted.
> >
> >i spend AT LEAST as much time reading leftist blogs, magazines, and
> >newspapers as i do right wing ones. and this point of mine is quite
> >obvious.
>
> And I still wonder how much of that is media hyperbole.
>
> But that's the end of my involvement here. I don't want to appear
> 'self-rightous' or anything.
>
> ---------------
> My give-a-**** meter is broken.

David Cohen
November 22nd 04, 05:08 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote
> Usenet Posting > wrote
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>> Will Brink > wrote:
>>>> > aj > wrote:
>>>> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Kids triply so.
>>>> >
>>>> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
>>>> >divorce.
>>>>
>>>> Not that you are bitterer or anything...
>>>
>>>Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
>>>seems designed to make men a pay day for women).
>>
>>Well, there was a time when it was actually a lot harder to even get
>>divorced at all. In fact, I read some rumblings from conservatives
>>that once they get "them thar damn faggits" they are coming after the
>>casual devorcer too. Ozzie and Harriet WILL rise again!
>
> I'm betting you just made that up.

No, it's true. We'll get to it, right after reactivating the draft and
making slavery legal.

You obviously didn't get the memo.

David
>

Lee Michaels
November 22nd 04, 05:10 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote
>
> No, it's true. We'll get to it, right after reactivating the draft and
> making slavery legal.
>

Now that has GOT to be a partisan issue.

Slavery.

The South will rise again. ;)

(now watch the lefties go into a frenzy)

David Cohen
November 22nd 04, 05:22 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>> No, it's true. We'll get to it, right after reactivating the draft and
>> making slavery legal.
>>
> Now that has GOT to be a partisan issue.
>
> Slavery.
>
> The South will rise again. ;)
>
> (now watch the lefties go into a frenzy)

My Leftist sister emailed me that map comparison of the red/blue states with
pre-Civil War free/slave states.

I agreed that Republicans are the pro-slavery party, and that that
character, Lincoln, was the worst.

Haven't heard back from her. Must be a whine-free week.

David

ATP
November 23rd 04, 12:52 AM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:54:20 GMT, "ATP" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:18:07 GMT, "ATP" >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> >> ...
> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> >> Usenet Posting > wrote:
> >> >> >> > "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>"Will Brink" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> > Found it!
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Her face.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>And Adam's Apple.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
> >figured
> >> >> >> >out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
> >with
> >> >> >> >it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you
lack.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Credentials as what? A lawyer?
> >> >>
> >> >> Honors baccalaureate from Cornell, JD from University of Michigan.
> >> >>
> >> >> What did you have when you left Stony Brook?
> >> >
> >> >I graduated summa (sic) cum laude (sic).
> >>
> >I'm not sure what your point is. You can't spell, perhaps?
>
> No, YOU can't. It's "Summa cum Laude", as you should know had you
> actually earned such a distinction.
>
Pretty lame flame, even for you. It does not need to be capitalized in a
sentence. It is capitalized as a distinction following a degree, for
example, B.A., Summa Cum Laude. It is not capitalized in the dictionary or
in the context that I used it.

ATP
November 23rd 04, 02:12 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
> >> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
> >> interpretation of facts, well researched.
> >>
> >> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
> >> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
> >
> >I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized. Coulter
is
> >entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing up
the
> >wacky congregation is debatable.
>
> And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
> documentarian.
>
> Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.

I'm not a fan of Trudeau or Moore. I don't know if anybody even reads
Trudeau anymore and apparently Moore's influence may have been overrated.

John Hanson
November 23rd 04, 02:29 AM
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:04:53 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:59:53 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:50:17 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:25:37 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:44:27 -0500, Will Brink
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >In article >,
>>>>> > aj > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Kids triply so.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
>>>>> >divorce.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that you are bitterer or anything...
>>>>
>>>>Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
>>>>seems designed to make men a pay day for women).
>>>
>>>Well, there was a time when it was actually a lot harder to even get
>>>divorced at all. In fact, I read some rumblings from conservatives
>>>that once they get "them thar damn faggits" they are coming after the
>>>casual devorcer too. Ozzie and Harriet WILL rise again!
>>
>>I'm betting you just made that up.
>
>Haha, does it bother you to be wrong so consistently?
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_re_us/protecting_marriage_6

Like I said, you made that statement up.

John M. Williams
November 23rd 04, 04:30 AM
"ATP" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
>> >> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
>> >> interpretation of facts, well researched.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory than
>> >> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
>> >
>> >I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized. Coulter
>is
>> >entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing up
>> >the wacky congregation is debatable.
>>
>> And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
>> documentarian.
>>
>> Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.
>
>I'm not a fan of Trudeau or Moore. I don't know if anybody even reads
>Trudeau anymore ...

Hmmm ...
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/cms/2004/large/Doonesbury-RS_954_August_5_2004_-_lg.6297681.jpg
(http://tinyurl.com/6s9fc)
Gee, I guess he must not have much influence on American
pop-liberalism.

>and apparently Moore's influence may have been overrated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318671/
"The top prize winner at May’s Cannes Film Festival, 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
set a record for highest-grossing documentary aside from concert films
and movies released in huge-screen IMAX theaters."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/11/film.fahrenheitfollow.ap/index.html
(http://tinyurl.com/6mfpm)
"LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to
'Fahrenheit 9/11,' his hit documentary that assails President Bush
over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on
terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
"Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax
boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready
in two to three years."

Hmmm ... I guess he doesn't have much influence on American
pop-liberalism, either.

ATP
November 24th 04, 02:05 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> "ATP" > wrote:
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
> >> >> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
> >> >> interpretation of facts, well researched.
> >> >>
> >> >> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory
than
> >> >> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized.
Coulter
> >is
> >> >entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing
up
> >> >the wacky congregation is debatable.
> >>
> >> And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
> >> documentarian.
> >>
> >> Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.
> >
> >I'm not a fan of Trudeau or Moore. I don't know if anybody even reads
> >Trudeau anymore ...
>
> Hmmm ...
>
http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/cms/2004/large/Doonesbury-RS_954_August_5_2004_-_lg.6297681.jpg
> (http://tinyurl.com/6s9fc)
> Gee, I guess he must not have much influence on American
> pop-liberalism.

Rolling Stone magazine? I guess someone must be reading that magazine if
they're still printing it. I recall someone reading it when I was in school
during the 70s. It's not exactly a driving cultural force right now.
>
> >and apparently Moore's influence may have been overrated.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318671/
> "The top prize winner at May's Cannes Film Festival, 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
> set a record for highest-grossing documentary aside from concert films
> and movies released in huge-screen IMAX theaters."
>
>
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/11/film.fahrenheitfollow.ap/index.html
> (http://tinyurl.com/6mfpm)
> "LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to
> 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' his hit documentary that assails President Bush
> over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on
> terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
> "Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax
> boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready
> in two to three years."
>
> Hmmm ... I guess he doesn't have much influence on American
> pop-liberalism, either.

More precisely, fears/hopes that Fahrenheit 9/11 would cost Bush the
election were unfounded. Moore's work had influence, no doubt. We really
don't know how many votes he changed. I only know one person who saw the
film. He was already vehemently anti-Bush. I think if Moore was really
committed to defeating Bush he would have arranged for a free airing of his
documentary.

I don't know that much about Ann Coulter's fans to really judge her ability
to sway minds. I think Rush has had a great influence on American politics.
His appeal is broad enough that he can pull in middle of the road listeners
and hold their attention long enough to have an impact. I don't see that
same appeal in Ann Coulter.

I'm not that interested in who is influencing "pop-liberalism". The people
who can really change things have the ability to cut across categories and
sway the undecided. If they're really good, they may even win some converts
from the other side.

Jim
November 24th 04, 02:24 AM
"ATP" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> >> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise
>> >> >> it's
>> >> >> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
>> >> >> interpretation of facts, well researched.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory
> than
>> >> >> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion
>> >> >> recognized.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized.
> Coulter
>> >is
>> >> >entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing
> up
>> >> >the wacky congregation is debatable.
>> >>
>> >> And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
>> >> documentarian.
>> >>
>> >> Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.
>> >
>> >I'm not a fan of Trudeau or Moore. I don't know if anybody even reads
>> >Trudeau anymore ...
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
> http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/cms/2004/large/Doonesbury-RS_954_August_5_2004_-_lg.6297681.jpg
>> (http://tinyurl.com/6s9fc)
>> Gee, I guess he must not have much influence on American
>> pop-liberalism.
>
> Rolling Stone magazine? I guess someone must be reading that magazine if
> they're still printing it. I recall someone reading it when I was in
> school
> during the 70s. It's not exactly a driving cultural force right now.
>>
>> >and apparently Moore's influence may have been overrated.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318671/
>> "The top prize winner at May's Cannes Film Festival, 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
>> set a record for highest-grossing documentary aside from concert films
>> and movies released in huge-screen IMAX theaters."
>>
>>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/11/film.fahrenheitfollow.ap/index.html
>> (http://tinyurl.com/6mfpm)
>> "LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to
>> 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' his hit documentary that assails President Bush
>> over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on
>> terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
>> "Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax
>> boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready
>> in two to three years."
>>
>> Hmmm ... I guess he doesn't have much influence on American
>> pop-liberalism, either.
>
> More precisely, fears/hopes that Fahrenheit 9/11 would cost Bush the
> election were unfounded. Moore's work had influence, no doubt. We really
> don't know how many votes he changed. I only know one person who saw the
> film. He was already vehemently anti-Bush. I think if Moore was really
> committed to defeating Bush he would have arranged for a free airing of
> his
> documentary.
>
> I don't know that much about Ann Coulter's fans to really judge her
> ability
> to sway minds. I think Rush has had a great influence on American
> politics.
> His appeal is broad enough that he can pull in middle of the road
> listeners
> and hold their attention long enough to have an impact. I don't see that
> same appeal in Ann Coulter.
>
> I'm not that interested in who is influencing "pop-liberalism". The people
> who can really change things have the ability to cut across categories and
> sway the undecided. If they're really good, they may even win some
> converts
> from the other side.

The 2 folks I see as the best are Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Both
Democrats.

Jim

John M. Williams
November 24th 04, 02:37 AM
"ATP" > wrote:
>
>I don't know that much about Ann Coulter's fans to really judge her ability
>to sway minds. I think Rush has had a great influence on American politics.
>His appeal is broad enough that he can pull in middle of the road listeners
>and hold their attention long enough to have an impact. I don't see that
>same appeal in Ann Coulter.

I disagree about Rush. He's doesn't influence anyone who doesn't
already agree with him.

>I'm not that interested in who is influencing "pop-liberalism". The people
>who can really change things have the ability to cut across categories and
>sway the undecided. If they're really good, they may even win some converts
>from the other side.

That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, that's not how it is.
Despite the political polarization of America, the beliefs of most
Americans are in the moderate range. The problems is that those with
strong ideologies are extremely vocal, and they force the moderates to
move one direction or another. The threats by the Christian Right to
the presumed ascendency of Arlen Specter in the Judicial Committee is
a good example.

elzinator
November 24th 04, 03:11 AM
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:05:40 -0500, ATP wrote:
>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> >> I read "Treason." It's caustic, and I'm sure you would despise it's
>> >> >> conclusions, though I doubt you've read it. It is, despite its
>> >> >> interpretation of facts, well researched.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In fact, her commentary on the facts isn't much more inflammatory
>than
>> >> >> your own, Mike. She's just better at having her opinion recognized.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not in the business of trying to get my opinion recognized.
>Coulter
>> >is
>> >> >entertaining wingers. Whether she is persuading people or just firing
>up
>> >> >the wacky congregation is debatable.
>> >>
>> >> And Garry Trudeau is just a comic artist. And Michael Moore is just
>> >> documentarian.
>> >>
>> >> Give it a rest, Mike. What goes around comes around.
>> >
>> >I'm not a fan of Trudeau or Moore. I don't know if anybody even reads
>> >Trudeau anymore ...
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/cms/2004/large/Doonesbury-RS_954_August_5_2004_-_lg.6297681.jpg
>> (http://tinyurl.com/6s9fc)
>> Gee, I guess he must not have much influence on American
>> pop-liberalism.
>
>Rolling Stone magazine? I guess someone must be reading that magazine if
>they're still printing it. I recall someone reading it when I was in school
>during the 70s. It's not exactly a driving cultural force right now.
>>
>> >and apparently Moore's influence may have been overrated.
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318671/
>> "The top prize winner at May's Cannes Film Festival, 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
>> set a record for highest-grossing documentary aside from concert films
>> and movies released in huge-screen IMAX theaters."
>>
>>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/11/film.fahrenheitfollow.ap/index.html
>> (http://tinyurl.com/6mfpm)
>> "LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to
>> 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' his hit documentary that assails President Bush
>> over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on
>> terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.
>> "Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax
>> boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready
>> in two to three years."
>>
>> Hmmm ... I guess he doesn't have much influence on American
>> pop-liberalism, either.
>
>More precisely, fears/hopes that Fahrenheit 9/11 would cost Bush the
>election were unfounded. Moore's work had influence, no doubt. We really
>don't know how many votes he changed. I only know one person who saw the
>film. He was already vehemently anti-Bush. I think if Moore was really
>committed to defeating Bush he would have arranged for a free airing of his
>documentary.
>
>I don't know that much about Ann Coulter's fans to really judge her ability
>to sway minds. I think Rush has had a great influence on American politics.
>His appeal is broad enough that he can pull in middle of the road listeners
>and hold their attention long enough to have an impact. I don't see that
>same appeal in Ann Coulter.
>
>I'm not that interested in who is influencing "pop-liberalism". The people
>who can really change things have the ability to cut across categories and
>sway the undecided. If they're really good, they may even win some converts
>from the other side.

Well said. Thank you.



---------------
My give-a-**** meter is broken.

Jim
November 24th 04, 04:33 AM
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/platform3.html

John Hanson
November 26th 04, 06:11 PM
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:38:35 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:29:57 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:04:53 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:59:53 -0600, John Hanson
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:50:17 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:25:37 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:44:27 -0500, Will Brink
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >In article >,
>>>>>>> > aj > wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> It also helps to be single. Spouses suck your chi.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Kids triply so.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >And if you have any chi left, the bitch will take half of that in the
>>>>>>> >divorce.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that you are bitterer or anything...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually no, I made out rather well all things considered (that the law
>>>>>>seems designed to make men a pay day for women).
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there was a time when it was actually a lot harder to even get
>>>>>divorced at all. In fact, I read some rumblings from conservatives
>>>>>that once they get "them thar damn faggits" they are coming after the
>>>>>casual devorcer too. Ozzie and Harriet WILL rise again!
>>>>
>>>>I'm betting you just made that up.
>>>
>>>Haha, does it bother you to be wrong so consistently?
>>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_re_us/protecting_marriage_6
>>
>>Like I said, you made that statement up.
>>
>
>Do you have your fingers in your ears going "LALALALALALA" when you
>type posts like this? Do you type with your feet?
>
>OR is this going back to one of your old arguments that because the
>EXACT statement was not in the article that it is invalid. Oh I do
>get a chuckle out of THAT particular argument.

Face it, you lied.

Lucas Buck
November 28th 04, 08:20 AM
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:17:16 -0500, "Jim" > wrote:

>"PostHoc" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>
>> elzinator > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:47:52 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Jim > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> > Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>> >> >> "ATP" > wrote:
>>> >> >>>"Will Brink" > wrote:
>>> >> >>>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> > Found it!
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Her face.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>And Adam's Apple.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>She is like this weird looking white-trash southern chick who
>>> >> >>figured
>>> >> >>out you can make a living doing a female Hannity routine and ran
>>> >> >>with
>>> >> >>it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Of course, she also has academic credentials which all of you lack.
>>> >>
>>> >> She lacks many things...the truth foremost. Her anger drives her. I
>> dont
>>> >get
>>> >> it..maybe she lacks a clitoris.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim
>>> >
>>> >it's notable how often leftists (supposedly those of compassion,
>> tolerance
>>> >and diversity) are quick to attack a person's very essence (femininity,
>>> >gender, race, etc.) when that person dares step outside the prescribed
>>> >left-plantation
>>>
>>> Huh? That's a trait shared by both sides, not just one or the other
>>> side.
>>>
>>> In case you didn't notice......
>>>
>>>
>>
>> i haven't. i haven't noticed any significant # of rightwinger who attack
>> people's gender or race, based on their ideology.
>>
>>
>> here are the "accepted' norms based on stats
>>
>> in general...
>>
>> gays, blacks, jews, buddhists, and atheists are all far more likely to be
>> liberal than conservative
>>
>> evangelicals (carter being an obvious exception) specifically, christian
>> theists, white males, etc;. are all far more likely to be conservative
>> than
>> liberal
>>
>> i can think of umpteen examples where leftists criticize individuals from
>> "accepted' left-leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
>> for
>> being conservative. i cited several examples. the aunt jemima comment is
>> the most recent
>>
>> i can think of very few examples where righties criticize individuals from
>> accepted right leaning groups as inconsistent with their gender or race
>> for
>> being liberal.
>>
>> so, can you think of some examples of the latter case? a rightwinger
>> claiming a liberal white, wasn't REALLY a white man? etc.
>>
>> i can think of very few examples. rightwinger do all sorts of silly
>> stuff,
>> but the above mentioned one is mostly the province of the far left.
>>
>> please think of some examples for me. they are not nearly as frequent as
>> among leftiwngers
>>
>Closed minded right wing ****** haters will always vote Republican...who
>does the KKK vote with...

Probably the same party as has the most former KKK members in Congress:
the Democrats.

Elzinator
November 28th 04, 10:18 PM
Lucas Buck > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 01:25:09 GMT, "PostHoc" > wrote:
>
> >elzinator > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:33 GMT, PostHoc wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> "Hypocrisy" is a more universal and relevant term. It knows no
> >> >> >> political affiliations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >and congratulations on evading the point and failure to provide
> evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, Whit, I do have another life to live rather than bickering about
> >> >> politics with you on a usenet forum, and to which would result in
> >> >> going nowhere because your beliefs are already determined. I inferred
> >> >> that many weeks ago.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >that is a cheap cop out. the point is you reflexively disagree with the
> >> >point, despite the fact you have not seen any evidence to counter it.
> >> >
> >> >there's a word for that, elzi. blind ideology.
> >>
> >> See my response to Adam.
> >
> >ok
> >
> >> And I live in the midst of counter evidence.
> >
> >try opening a magazine, newspaper, or book
> >
> >whit
>
> Funny thing is, if someone tries to make bogus scientific arguments here
> like she is making bogus political arguments, she is among the first to
> jump on that person.
>
> If only she'd apply the same rigorous critical analysis
> to her sources of political information as she does for scientific
> information...

Bull****. Today's politics is not a science.

> For example, Elzi, do you honestly think Texas was better run back in the days
> of total Democrat control (Ann Richards w/ a Democrat legislature) than it is
> now? If so, for what specific reasons? Discuss, but keep your arguments
> referenceable.

I have no idea. I did not live in Texas then. I can't form opinions on
that.

Also, 'references' do not necessarily represent the facts in a social
science such as politics. 'Analyses' are aslo biased. Do you form your
opinions and arguments on only what you read in the paper/magazines or
watching CNN? I can find fault with that (media sources) as you can
with my obervations and discussions with 'real' people. I form my
opinions from a combination of information sources as well as from
life around me. Not media hyperbole.

I don't care for the Democrats any more than I do the Republicans. I
vote on issues, not personalities and party affiliations.
Historically, my presidential vote was for one or the other of the two
party choices, which ever one I felt was the best choice according to
what I believed depending on the issues at that time. What's wrong
with that? Are are you all too myopic to concede that paritsan
philosophies change and don't represent the entire population?

Jim
November 28th 04, 11:17 PM
Why is it that lefties feel like they have to make excuses.
Be proud..Say..I'm a Democrat!