Somebody sue this lier please!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Shulai Mar 12, 2007 3:33 PM EDT |
This is not even near to be considered stupidity. This guy is trying to confuse clueless people into believe there is the most remote resemblance between Wikipedia, where basically anybody can alter the contents, with FOSS where you usually can't slip changes without previous review from a lead developer. And of course, getting some dollars in his pocket while doing so. Yes, Debian repos has been compromised. And so Microsoft code was stolen too. And you can get tainted FOSS from a non-official mirror or distributor. And you can get proprietary software with backdoors or malware from small unknown providers, or even from large ones like Sony! So, somebody like Mark Shuttleworth should invite this shameless idiot to chose between retract in its column or being sued unless he demonstrate being able to alter Ubuntu code repositories and then rendering Ubuntu untrusted. |
| jdixon Mar 12, 2007 4:31 PM EDT |
It's Enderle. What did you expect? |
| tracyanne Mar 12, 2007 9:29 PM EDT |
Endere is the Ann Coulter of IT blogging. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 3:12 AM EDT |
>Endere is the Ann Coulter of IT blogging. Ann Coulter is smart and funny. She knows how to get a rise out of people -- and how to show them at their hypocritical worst. I loved the recent John Edwards thing. Remembering some of the "Aunt Jemima" political cartoons from the liberal press when Condoleeza Rice was appointed Secretary of State, it showed how stupid and memory-free the punditry thinks that we are. Best of all, were the folks who went through old editions of some of those jabbery lefty blogs and found the very same word used in reference to Pres. Bush and others in the administration. Gotta love it. Enderle is an artless piker by comparison. |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 3:41 AM EDT |
quote:: Ann Coulter is smart and funny. She knows how to get a rise out of people -- and how to show them at their hypocritical worst. ::quote Actually Ann Coulter is a know nothing idiot who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow, or pseudo science from real science. I did Enderle a disservice by comparing him to her. Enderle actually makes some good points from time to time. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 3:54 AM EDT |
> Actually Ann Coulter is a know nothing idiot who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow, or pseudo science from real science. I did Enderle a disservice by comparing him to her. Enderle actually makes some good points from time to time. The only thing either of them prove is how far into the silme some will go to make a buck. How many worms are you willing to eat? It's just more 'Reality' TV. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 4:12 AM EDT |
Ooh.... Liberals with their hackles up. I think the thing most libs hate about Coulter is her tendency to be right (as well as to the right). |
| richo123 Mar 13, 2007 4:24 AM EDT |
Nah Dino, Coulter makes a living simply by winding people up (clockwise for the right anti-clockwise for the left). He errrrr she is completely vacuous from an intellectual viewpoint. Enderle is just another self important idiot who thinks his opinion counts because he has built a syndication empire. Boring.... |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 4:50 AM EDT |
What's with the attacks on Ann Coulter? She's in the entertainment business. That's how she makes her money - by telling conservatives what they want to hear, and making conservatives think liberals care what she says. Similar things could be said about some on the other side of the aisle. Al Franken comes to mind. None of it is very important in my opinion, but in any event, let's not pretend that these are academic debates designed to discover truth. If you think you'll find the truth in an area that relies on book sales and advertising dollars to survive, I've got a bridge to sell you. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 5:05 AM EDT |
>she is completely vacuous Not at all. You want vacuous, you need Michael Moore. Coulter is strident and biased and very mouthy. She is also smart and pretty well-researched. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 5:50 AM EDT |
> He errrrr she is completely vacuous from an intellectual viewpoint. If she were that bad you wouldn't have any reason to dislike her. She is very effective at making the points she wishes to make. And, as I noted earlier in another thread, she's funny. It's always unwise to underestimate your opposition. The left did that for years with Bush and company and look where it's gotten them (of course, at least part of their problem is not recognizing that Bush isn't really their opposition, but that's a matter for another discussion which gets heavily into politics and outside the TOS). > Coulter is strident and biased and very mouthy. Is she ever. :) Of course, the left prefers the old version of conservatives, who meekly behaved themselves and never replied in kind. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
>Is she ever. :) Of course, the left prefers the old version of conservatives, who meekly behaved themselves and never replied in kind. Yeah. It kind of reminds me of my old days driving to work on the North Dallas Tollway. The surest way to get somebody really mad at me was not to let them cut me off. IE -- nothing makes jerks madder than not letting them be jerks themselves. Liberal corollary: Hey!! We're allowed to be flamethrowers (Curious George, Clarence "lawn jockey" Thomas, Condoleeza "Aunt Jemima" Rice). You're not. |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
> look where it's gotten them Not just them. Look where it's gotten me as well. I've got to live with him as president as well. I think nominating John Kerry might have had something to do with it as well, though. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
>I think nominating John Kerry might have had something to do with it as well, though. You think? I am convinced that many people who voted for Bush in 2000 would have considered the Democratic candidate in 2004 if there actually had been one. |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
> I am convinced that many people who voted for Bush in 2000 would have considered the Democratic candidate in 2004 if there actually had been one. That probably includes a lot of Republicans. It always makes me shake my head that the line about Kerry was that he was "electable". |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
> I am convinced that many people who voted for Bush in 2000 would have considered the Democratic candidate in 2004 if there actually had been one. Unfortunately for the democratic process, it looks like the same thing will be true in reverse in 2008. :( |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 7:59 AM EDT |
> Unfortunately for the democratic process, it looks like the same thing will be true in reverse in 2008. :( Yeah, but, unfortunately for the democratic process, there is no 'Presidential' material in any of the parties potential candidates. Another election with no real choices. > Liberals with their hackles up. @Dino You only wish I was that easy to categorize ;-). |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 8:16 AM EDT |
> ...there is no 'Presidential' material in any of the parties potential candidates. Don't let any Hillary supporter hear you say that, or you may not be around to continue the conversation. :) Unfortunately, I agree. Though Ron Paul has apparently announced he'll be running as a Republican. He'll never make it through the primaries though. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 8:18 AM EDT |
> You only wish I was that easy to categorize ;-). Neither Dino nor I ever wish anyone were that easy to categorize Jim. Unfortunately, many are. Fortunately, in this fora, there are a lot who aren't. |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 8:41 AM EDT |
> there is no 'Presidential' material in any of the parties potential candidates I don't know about that. I might not vote for them, but as far as 'presidential', there are Obama and Edwards on one side, and Giuliani, Romney, or Hagel on the other. Whether I like them or not, any of them would be leaders. (Admittedly, none of them have 'real' experience, but neither did Clinton or the current Bush, or Reagan, or Carter,....) Always remember, in line with the objectives of this website: *** It was Mitt Romney who fought for ODF in Massachussets *** That's almost enough for me. |
| tuxchick Mar 13, 2007 8:41 AM EDT |
I'm just your garden-variety feminazi. Everyone who joins my militia gets a free cool hat. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
> Whether I like them or not, any of them would be leaders. Ouch! For President of the local ASPCA... 'Maabe'... > *** It was Mitt Romney who fought for ODF in Massachussets *** > That's almost enough for me. Wow, are your expectations high or what... |
| DarrenR114 Mar 13, 2007 8:52 AM EDT |
Ann Coulter is NOT smart ... She's the same pundit who went to Canada to appear on a radio talk show, where she complained about the lack of Canadian support for the Invasion of Iraq. She told the Canadians that they should be in the coalition with the US and send troops to support our cause. Ms. Coulter even went so far as to say that the Canadians should send troops in support just as they sent troops to Vietnam as allies with the US. She could NOT believe she was wrong and refused to acknowlege her ignorance of history even when corrected by the host of the Radio Show: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm It is because of ignorance like this that seems to pervade the pundits of the Right that I am questioning more and more whether I wish to remain a Republican. |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
> Wow, are your expectations high or what... Perhaps. My optimism might be why I didn't think the 2000 election was important. Nonetheless, a president willing to consider non-Microsoft alternatives would be quite a breakthrough. Imagine an education bill that requires schools to consider open source alternatives and purchase those open source alternatives if it would save money. He'd be the most likely to consider such an action, particularly given that Microsoft has already given him a lot of trouble. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
Jimf - On 9/11, Giuliani proved he was Leader material. Obama seems like a really good man with tons of potential, but in need of some seasoning. Still, I hold out hope that some other names will come to the fore before the whole thing is over and done, with maybe one or two rating a "Yeah, I could see that." |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
> On 9/11, Giuliani proved he was Leader material For a local disaster/crisis yes, but as the Nation's leader? I don't think so. Really Dino, that police chief (what's his name) was also a leader in those circumstances, and, you wouldn't think of him as a candidate... As for Obama, you haven't a clue as to what he really is. Rhetoric is just talk. Potential is just that, and, we have no real track record with him. Maybe it's to be expected. I think that anyone who runs for President these days has to be a megalomaniac, or just plain deranged. |
| tuxchick Mar 13, 2007 10:36 AM EDT |
"anyone who runs for President these days has to be a megalomaniac, or just plain deranged." sheesh jimf, that goes in the "duh" category :) What sane person would even want the job in the first place? |
| swbrown Mar 13, 2007 10:40 AM EDT |
> Ann Coulter is smart and funny. She knows how to get a rise out of people -- and how to show them at their hypocritical worst. Oh yes, she's real funny when she called Edwards a 'faggot' and Al gore a 'fag', advocates carpet bombing Iraq civilians, and a crusade against Muslims. Ha ha, laugh riot. You know what's also funny? Serial rapists. Wait, none of this is funny. |
| richo123 Mar 13, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
That's the problem tuxchick. That amount of power attracts nuts and psychopaths. Its a rather unfortunate filter. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 10:43 AM EDT |
>As for Obama, you haven't a clue as to what he really is. Perhaps I pay more attention than you do. At the very least, I know that he is my Senator. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 10:44 AM EDT |
>Oh yes, she's real funny when she called Edwards a 'faggot' and Al gore a 'fag', I guess it's only funny when it's liberals calling George Bush a faggot or making racist characterizations of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 10:52 AM EDT |
> >Oh yes, she's real funny when she called Edwards a 'faggot' and Al gore a 'fag', > I guess it's only funny when it's liberals calling George Bush a faggot or making racist characterizations of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice. Neither of those are funny. Just an indication of the lack of integrity in both camps. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
> At the very least, I know that he is my Senator. But apparently doesn't want to be any more... Moving on up. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
>Neither of those are funny. Just an indication of the lack of integrity in both camps. Aw, dang it, Jim, why would you have to go flaunt your personal integrity? You know where that leads, don't you? People might start talking to each other. Worse, they might even listen!! Then, they'll find areas of commonality among their differences, and they'll figure out where they can compromise and where they can't. The world would become a better place, and who would want that? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 13, 2007 11:08 AM EDT |
Cabuto style headline: How long has Sean Hannity been bisexual and intimately involved with both Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter? |
| swbrown Mar 13, 2007 11:13 AM EDT |
> I guess it's only funny when it's liberals calling George Bush a faggot or making racist characterizations of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice. Umm, no. If you have to justify hate and bigotry by "Well, the other side did it!" then you fail at life. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 11:15 AM EDT |
>How long has Sean Hannity been bisexual and intimately involved with both Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter? Don't know how long so far, but he's sure to continue for as long as it takes. Hillary is jealous. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
> Hillary is jealous. Oh goody! It's always entertaining to add a snake to the act. |
| tuxchick Mar 13, 2007 11:38 AM EDT |
Talk about a meandering thread! Poor thing fell right off a cliff. |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
> Poor thing fell right off a cliff. It started with a discussion of an Enderle article, so it didn't have anywhere to go but up. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 11:48 AM EDT |
Well TC, it started with stupidity, and ended the same :D |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 13, 2007 11:51 AM EDT |
Neither "left" nor "right" are willing to wean themselves from the teat of Big Mommy. Any difference between the two is the same as the "competition" between two different "brands" of Post cereals, purely the results of effective marketing to give the illusion of choice. |
| tuxchick Mar 13, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
jimf, bigg, I stand corrected. Poor thing fell right up a cliff. :) |
| dcparris Mar 13, 2007 1:53 PM EDT |
You know, I've been trying to figure out whether I'm leftist or rightist. I mean, I'm fiscally conservative (or at least from a mental standpoint, if not entirely in practice - something about family and all that stuff), but socially, I'm too far left for some and too far right for others. I'm so confused! >Everyone who joins my militia gets a free cool hat. As cool as my black fedora? |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
> I'm so confused! No Don, you're just willing and able to think out of the box. Something that makes it much harder for the powers that be to catagorize you, so, not something that is generally aproved of in this society. |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 4:47 PM EDT |
quote:: Liberals with their hackles up. I think the thing most libs hate about Coulter is her tendency to be right (as well as to the right). ::quote First of all I'm not a liberal. Second Ann Coulter is never correct, she is also dishonest to the core. Her arguements are based on the principle of the big lie - tell a lie that's over the top enough, and tell it often enough and people won't question what you say, especially if your lie fits in closely enough with their prejudices. Enderle at least makes an attempt to tell the truth, yes he's biased, so it's the truth as he sees, and he hits the nail on the head often enough that his opinion is worth while considering while one follows up on the facts. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 6:10 PM EDT |
>No Don, you're just willing and able to think out of the box. Not to mention the fact that left and right get attached to things that have nothing to do with left or right. Left v. Right is predominantly a matter of the government's position in the life of a citizenry, and the power of the citizen vis a vis the government. It has nothing to do with whether we believe in cleaning up the environment , women's rights, civil rights, or a million other issues. I think of the Catholic Church which is against the death penalty (thought by many to be a "left" position) and against abortion (thought by many to be a "right" position). |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 6:51 PM EDT |
> Oh yes, she's real funny when she called Edwards a 'faggot' and Al gore a 'fag', advocates carpet bombing Iraq civilians, and a crusade against Muslims. Actually, yes. It's all in how it's said. Read her quotes about Edwards again. As I understand it, she never actually called him a faggot. She instead danced around the issue, leaving it clear what she meant without actually saying it. I would advocate carpet bombing of Iraqi citizens if they deliberately allowed people to shoot at us from within their midst, and a crusade against Muslims if that's what it takes to preserve our national security. Then again, if I were making the decisions, the Al-Sadr militia wouldn't be a problem now, as they would have been wiped out a Fallujah, and any mosque which was being used as cover in a fire fight would be leveled. Of course, some folks consider me to be an extremist, but I really have no idea what they're talking about. :) |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 7:00 PM EDT |
> First of all I'm not a liberal. Second Ann Coulter is never correct, she is also dishonest to the core. Tracyanne, I hate to break this to you, but if you're that upset by Ann Coulter, then you're a liberal. > Second Ann Coulter is never correct, she is also dishonest to the core. Her arguements are based on the principle of the big lie... No, her arguments are based on selective choosing of the facts: Picking those which support your position while ignoring or minimizing the importance of those which don't. She also carefully uses existing stereotypes to maximum effect. That's why "calling Edwards a faggot" is so funny. It's not that anyone believes it's true, it's that Edwards can't even justifiably get upset about it, because the party position is that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and Edwards is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as effeminate. |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 7:05 PM EDT |
quote:: Tracyanne, I hate to break this to you, but if you're that upset by Ann Coulter, then you're a liberal. ::quote No I'm someone who prefers honesty. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 7:21 PM EDT |
>No I'm someone who prefers honesty. At least until you said that. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 7:25 PM EDT |
With the increased concern over the welfare of it's customers, I understand that Ann Coulter is being considered as Microsoft's new dominatrix for public relations. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 7:27 PM EDT |
> No I'm someone who prefers honesty... Tracyanne, please keep in mind that I don't know you personally, and that all I can go on is what's available here. Therefore, it's not only possible that I'm wrong, it's even likely that I'm not entirely correct. That said, I think the paraphrasing the Bard says it best: thou dost protest too much, methinks. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 7:29 PM EDT |
>With the increased concern over the welfare of it's customers, I understand that Ann Coulter is being considered as Microsoft's new dominatrix for public relations. Hmmm. Why do I think she'd have no trouble getting Steve Ballmer into positions the FOSS community has only dreamed about? |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 7:29 PM EDT |
> I understand that Ann Coulter is being considered as Microsoft's new dominatrix for public relations. Well, she'd be good at it. Unfortunately, it would alienate half of their customers. |
| dinotrac Mar 13, 2007 7:30 PM EDT |
tracyanne - I am curious, however, as to which of her books you dislike the most, and why. |
| jimf Mar 13, 2007 7:31 PM EDT |
> Unfortunately, it would alienate half of their customers. They seem to be doing that without her, and, think of the new people she's gonna bring in ;-) |
| bigg Mar 13, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
> getting Steve Ballmer into positions the FOSS community has only dreamed about I don't know about you, but I can assure you, I don't "dream about" Steve Ballmer that way. |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 8:06 PM EDT |
quote:: >No I'm someone who prefers honesty. At least until you said that. ::quote So have you stopped beating your Wife/Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Husband. Neat argument, I guess there is no answer to that is there. It's also dishonest. But it didn't cost much. |
| dcparris Mar 13, 2007 8:49 PM EDT |
> I don't know about you, but I can assure you, I don't "dream about" Steve Ballmer that way. Whew! For a minute there, I thought I was the only one who doesn't. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 8:55 PM EDT |
> So have you stopped beating your Wife/Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Husband. As I'm sure Ann could tell you, as this is exactly the kind of verbal jousting she's good at, the correct answer to this question is no. The possible reasons why this is the correct answer are left as an exercise for the reader. :) |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 9:10 PM EDT |
quote:: As I'm sure Ann could tell you, as this is exactly the kind of verbal jousting she's good at ::quote Except that Ann Coulter is never honest, she makes use of innuendo and indeed the big lie, and she does this to promote a particular Religous/political view, what's interesting is that in the process she makes a mockery of the espoused values of the very religion she attempts to promote. Most people make the attempt at honesty, but Ann Coulter never does. That is the difference between her an Bob Enderle. Flawed though many of his arguments may be, he at least makes an honest attempt to seek the truth. |
| jdixon Mar 13, 2007 10:00 PM EDT |
> ...he at least makes an honest attempt to seek the truth. Not when it comes to open source he doesn't. He has too much invested in it's failure to be honest. This article is a perfect example. It's exactly the type of "lie" you accuse Ann of using. |
| tracyanne Mar 13, 2007 10:37 PM EDT |
quote:: Not when it comes to open source he doesn't. He has too much invested in it's failure to be honest. This article is a perfect example. It's exactly the type of "lie" you accuse Ann of using. ::quote And I thought he was trying to make the point that Dishonest people will ruin a good thing, and complcent people will make it worse. The thing is that when it comes to software development you get caught out very quickly if you make claims to things you don't have the skill/knowledge to do, but with something like Wikipedia you can get away with it for a goodly long time. The interesting thing is that the blokes dishonesty (his lying, in fact - not just his claims to a degree he didn't have but also the false information he disseminated) was brushed under the carpet by the Wikipedia people. i didn't get from that the the whole FOSS thing was tainted. I got from his article that the Wikipedia was tainted, and tainted because of the way in which complacency and dishonesty worked so well together. I don't particularly like a lot of what he has to say (it's often rather discomforting), but when I sit down and think about it, he often has a good point. He may well dislike FOSS, but that doesn't necessarily discount the points he makes, and rather than trying to discredit him, I think we'd be better off looking at what we need to do to get it right. That is the best way to defuse any claims he makes regarding FOSS. |
| dcparris Mar 13, 2007 10:38 PM EDT |
I have to agree on this point. There is little or nothing remotely honest about Enderle's article. His one nearly valid point was scrunched into the middle some serious twisted knots. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 2:27 AM EDT |
>Except that Ann Coulter is never honest So... Let's see how honest you are. What do you actually know about her? How much of her stuff have you read? How many times have you seen her? It may simply be that we disagree completely and that Ann Coulter is to you as Michael Moore is to me. Re Michael Moore -- Just so you'll know that I actually have a reason for my disdain: The only one of his films that I have seen is "Roger and Me" - the central premise of which was a lie. As it turns out, he actually did two interviews with Roger Smith. I didn't see Fahrenheit 911 and won't see any more Michael Moore films because I don't want to line his pockets. That stems from a performance he did in England - one I only read about. He took to the stage and started talking about middle-aged white men and how we lack courage, etc. Fine. He wants to be stupid, that's his business. Then he said that 9/11 might have gone differently if there had been some brothers on those planes. I read an angry letter to the editor by a local person of color who complained that Moore seemed to think black men weren't smart enough/civilized enough to follow the standard protocol at the time -- cooperation. Until 9/11, your best chance to survive was, in fact, to go along with the hijackers. I, on the other hand, was offended by the lie and Moore's willingness to say anything without regard to truth or decency. After all, the passengers of United 93 did manage to overpower the hijackers who were in the passenger cabin and, although they failed to take control of the plane, kept it from reaching its destination. Michael Moore would have to evolve mightily to elevate himself to a par with pond scum. People call him a documentary film maker, but that's garbage. He is more like Leni Reifenstahl, except that you have to subtract her looks, her talent, and whatever integrity she may have possessed. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 2:52 AM EDT |
> i didn't get from that the the whole FOSS thing was tainted. I got from his article that the Wikipedia was tainted, ... >> Wikipedia Discredits Open Source... Did you not bother to read the title? He's claiming a set of problems with Wikipedia (problems which, while real, are debatable in importance), and claiming they extend to FOSS. This is a standard Enderle tactic when it comes to open source. Take any possible flaw, however small, and trumpet it to the skys claiming it will bring down the entire (to him) house of cards. And if such a flaw doesn't exist? Well, that's OK, he'll just make one up. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 3:15 AM EDT |
> Except that Ann Coulter is never honest... I think we'll just have to disagree on that point. I find her extremely biased, but honest. Her tactics don't appeal to some folks, in the same way that those of Limbaugh or Hannity don't, but that's another matter. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 6:03 AM EDT |
I find Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity to be distasteful and dishonest. I am not a liberal -> I am pro-life (completely pro-life such that I do not support capital punishment.) I don't support spending tax dollars just for the sake of spending - I want smart spending, not the same old quid pro quo spending. I am a progressive - I believe that the responsibilty of the government is to provide for the general welfare as well as the common defense. I believe the government that best serves the people is one which provides a pathway to better the lives of all citizens - not just a few who already have more than they need. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
Hmm, I was going to post a nice long reply to this highlighting the areas where I agree and disagree, and noting why, but then I realized that would take us way too far past the TOS. :( However, since thread is about bias in reporting, from that to political bias in reporting, and from there the honesty of such positions, I do want to note one point of disagreement: > I am not a liberal ... > I believe the government that best serves the people is one which provides a pathway to better the lives of all citizens - not just a few who already have more than they need. Since the only way of accomplishing that is to take the money from those who "already have more than they need", you are explicitly arguing for income redistribution. This most be some new meaning of "not a liberal" with which I was previously unacquainted. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. The guy down the street can learn to earn more money without taking anything from me. Not that I have more than I need - I'm among the needy. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 6:47 AM EDT |
Exactly DC ... I don't believe in "income redistribution" but I do believe that everyone should be given the opportunity to go as far in their living situations as their ability and ambition will support them. The typical "conservative" attitude seems to be supporting "economic oppression" because they believe that something *must* be taken from them to give opportunity to those with "less". That belief is a fallacy. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 14, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
Ah, identity through ideology. "I believe this, so I'm not a liberal." "I believe that, so I'm not a conservative." Well, guess what? Most people disagree with one or more of the "beliefs" that their chosen "ideology" is supposed to hold. But don't let this little detail get in the way of being controlled by the two faces of the Party of State Power. Keep up the division, they love that. JimF, I'm sorry to see Ron Paul having been brought up and dismissed in the same post. He may not make it through the primaries, but if he can get into even one debate at least people will get to hear from someone whose voting record reflects both "left" and "right", because his position extends beyond this idiotic "identity through ideology". Leave people alone, and "left" or "right" are utterly irrelevant. Edit: Just found this, thought you might like it: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst031207.htm |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 7:01 AM EDT |
Gee, Bob. That was the whole point of my earlier post! I've actually always considered myself to be a moderate conservative. Well, except where Linux is concerned. Then I turn all fanatical. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
Now here's an idea - issue every citizen over 18 a personal sidearm and rifle, including all ex-convicts. Require them to attend basic firearm safety courses (at no cost to them) on an annual basis. Also require them to keep one or both weapons immediately accessible to themselves at all times. I'd expect that violent crime would decrease. I also doubt that such an act would ever get passed into law. Another crazy idea I've had is that voting in elections should be required and not voluntary. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 7:10 AM EDT |
> The guy down the street can learn to earn more money without taking anything from me. Agreed, but government programs, which involve taxation, are not the best way to handle this. Darren is explicitly endorsing government programs. > The typical "conservative" attitude seems to be supporting "economic oppression" because they believe that something *must* be taken from them to give opportunity to those with "less". That belief is a fallacy. Sigh. Government programs are funded via taxation. Taxation is not voluntary, so how is taxation NOT "taken from them to give opportunity to those with "less""? The only counter examples I can think of are the voluntary lotteries. If you want to propose funding such programs out of those, I'm all for it (and many states use lottery funds for exactly such purposes), but guess which groups buy the most lottery tickets. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 7:19 AM EDT |
Darren: Now you're getting somewhere. > Now here's an idea - issue every citizen over 18 a personal sidearm and rifle, including all ex-convicts. Require them to attend basic firearm safety courses (at no cost to them) on an annual basis. Also require them to keep one or both weapons immediately accessible to themselves at all times. Better to have a two year mandatory government service program for all 18 year olds, one option of which would be military service which would involve firearms training with the option to continue as above. That allows for individual choice while still having the desired benefits of greatly increasing gun ownership among the civilian population (well, in some areas, WV tends to already have a very high gun ownership percentage). > Another crazy idea I've had is that voting in elections should be required and not voluntary. Do you really want people who are too lazy to inform themselves on the issues being required to vote? I doubt that would have the effect you desire. A better solution would probably be to do away with elections entirely and have our representatives chosen by random drawing from among the populace. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 7:25 AM EDT |
Bob: > I'm sorry to see Ron Paul having been brought up and dismissed in the same post. That was me, and I wasn't intending to dismiss him, just giving my evaluation of his chances at getting the Republican nomination. I'd love to see him on the ballot, but I've seen the Republican part in action too long to think he has any chance. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
@jimf,
>Do you really want people who are too lazy to inform themselves on the issues being required to vote? I doubt that would have the effect you desire. A better solution would probably be to do away with elections entirely and have our representatives chosen by random drawing from among the populace. I thought about that, and really I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. I've found many of the regular voters down here in FL are still ignorant fools who don't even really understand how the electoral college works. They just vote for whoever tells them that their Medicare benefits will be increased and their property taxes will be decreased. "Vote for me or else my opponent will let the terrorists take over your condo association!" It's too bad that racist bigots had to abuse the idea of "poll tests" back in the Jim Crow era. Otherwise we could refine the idea of limiting voting to those who pass basic civics tests. And for those who do pass, they would be required to vote, or pay a fine for "non-voting". |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 7:41 AM EDT |
Darren: > @jimf, Actually, that's jdixon. Jimf and I agree on occasion, but disagree sometimes too. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 7:43 AM EDT |
@jdixon, ooops .... My Alzheimer's is showing through. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 7:51 AM EDT |
Lots of people vote however their pastor, spouse, or co-workers tell them to vote. Truth be told, my wife generally asks me for guidance. Frankly, I can't even keep up with all the issues to know what I'm voting about in some cases. Take a state judge. I've never heard the names of the folks running. I've never seen most of them in the news. I don't know whether they are reasonable or honest or even their party affiliations. Yet, I am expected to choose. And I consider myself to be reasonably aware of politics and civics. What we really need is a solid format for educating voting citizens about the races and issues before them. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 8:02 AM EDT |
> What we really need is a solid format for educating voting citizens about the races and issues before them. Keeping this on topic as much as possible: a solid, unbiased, format. What do you think the odds are? |
| hkwint Mar 14, 2007 8:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:What we really need is a solid format for educating voting citizens about the races and issues before them Same here in Europe. If you ever heard of a guy named Wilders, you probably will understand. |
| jimf Mar 14, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
@DarrenR114 > @jimf, >Do you really want people who are too lazy to inform themselves on the issues being required to vote? Alzheimer's indeed... I never expressed anything of the sort. I think you meant @jdixon? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 14, 2007 10:14 AM EDT |
@jimf I meant *my* alzheimer's was showing through ... I was intending that my reply should be directed at the originator of the quote that I inadvertently attributed to you. In this case it was jdixon. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 14, 2007 10:27 AM EDT |
"Keeping this on topic as much as possible: a solid, unbiased, format. What do you think the odds are?" As long as vested interests are doing the educating, no chance at all. That is the second most important reason to get government out of education. An ignorant, uneducated electorate, is in the best interests of those already in power. Any real threat they just "buy off" (see: Ross Perot). Agreed that there is little or no chance of Dr. Paul getting the nomination, but no one from the Socialist part was ever elected either, yet their entire platform has been implemented over the last 80 years. Hopefully, just having Paul visible will be enough to get people talking about real repeal (as opposed to endless "reform"). Now, if only the main-stream media would mention him. DC, no question we come at the problem from different sides, but we have both reached the conclusion that government is the wrong way to try to solve things. There is a lot of work by Rothbard talking about the "left and right" and how the "left" is the traditional side of individual liberty. The problem is that the idea of equality overcame freedom, and trying to enforce equality is a terrible thing. |
| jimf Mar 14, 2007 10:32 AM EDT |
@Darren Yep, I got all that ;-) |
| tracyanne Mar 14, 2007 2:04 PM EDT |
Let's see how honest you are. quote:: What do you actually know about her? ::quote I know that she is very right wing in her political viewpoint. She dislikes Atheists intensely, She holds opinions about Homosexuals and Evolution that are not only wrong, but I have demonstrated to her to be wrong. quote:: How much of her stuff have you read? ::quote Her columns from time to time, when I can stomach the lies, misrepresentations, misinformation, obvious lack of knowledge of science - especially biology and evolution - long enough to complete the article. Not much recently. quote:: How many times have you seen her? ::quote I've never seen her other than her photograph, I've not met her in person, only via the debate board she used to have on ezboard, and via email. I used to be a member of an ezboard she set up. I disagreed with her on two major subjects, her take on Evolution/Creationism and Homosexuality. I demonstrated that she was not only wrong but also misrepresenting some facts, on both counts. For my efforts I was banned from the board. The board was later disbanded and recreated elsewhere, where she had more control over who was able to become a member. In short I know enough about her to know that she is fundamentally dishonest. |
| tracyanne Mar 14, 2007 2:09 PM EDT |
quote:: For my efforts I was banned from the board. The board was later disbanded and recreated elsewhere, ::quote The disbandment had nothing to do with me. There were many other people who did later did the same thing as I had done, some of them to be fair to her, were not nearly as polite as I was at the time. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 2:42 PM EDT |
tracyanne - You are entitled to your opinion. I can't read Coulter's mind, but I have no reason to believe that she secretly loves homosexuals and hates the Church, so it is hard for me to accept your characterization of her as dishonest. Misguided, perhaps, wrong, perhaps, but not dishonest -- certainly not on a scale of Michael Moore. I must admit, I may simply misunderstand you. Honesty tends to mean something different from the traditional "tell the truth, don't intentionally mislead" when it comes from left-leaners. The ga-ga iconification of Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" is just the latest example (even the New York Times was moved to point out some inconvenient lies, though, leaning as they do, they were called inaccuracies.) There are still old-wing lefties who can't bring themselves to admit that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, even after the results of a very secret code-breaking operation were revealed -- proving that the innocents weren't. I'll grant you this -- Ann Coulter is true to her legal training. She makes no pretense at being fair and balanced. When you think about it, that's a heck of a lot more honest than most of the media. |
| tracyanne Mar 14, 2007 3:29 PM EDT |
Honesty - quote:: tell the truth, don't intentionally mislead ::quote That's what I always thought it meant. It also means, in my opinion, accepting when you are wrong, especially when you have been shown to be wrong (other posters, here, demonstrated her refusal to accept that she was wrong, on other issues) - I believe, based on my experience of Ann Coulter, and her writing that I've read, that she is also Intellectually dishonest. I think she is every bit as dishonest as Michael Moore, and maybe more. I think they are both Media Whores, who, for all their espoused support of whatever side they have taken, worship in the church of their own personality cult. I don't think Bob Enderle is anything like Ann Coulter. I find some of his stuff obnoxious, but he does make many points that I'm forced to agree with. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2007 4:14 PM EDT |
Ah, Alger Hiss! I read SpyCatcher (in England, no less, although it had been outlawed there at the time). Peter's book started off as a great sleep aid, but after the first couple chapters revved up quite nicely into a stay-awake aid. He mentioned Hiss, along with a few others. What was funny, to me, was that some British people seemed to believe or sense that Peter was correct - even before he wrote the book. They didn't understand why the government outlawed a book that expressed what many (most?) already believed. I won't comment on Coulter. I wouldn't know her if she sat next to me and introduced herself. I can't say I've ever read a single column or seen any media coverage of her whatsoever. I don't pay much attention to t.v., soooo... |
| jimf Mar 14, 2007 4:57 PM EDT |
Gee... Ann Coulter, Al Gore, Michael Moore, or even that Bush guy 'could be' the next messiah for all I know... That's somewhat unlikely, but they all seem to aspire to that role. Their problem is, it's a field already over stuffed with smug, self satisfied diva posers, all thinking they know 'The Answer', and more than willing to proclaim their infallibility and run for office if the chance arises. God help us all if we believe any of them. |
| dinotrac Mar 14, 2007 5:19 PM EDT |
>I think they are both Media Whores Ok. You get points for that and more points for not letting me bait you. Good job. |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2007 9:04 PM EDT |
tracyanne: > It also means, in my opinion, accepting when you are wrong, especially when you have been shown to be wrong... Not exactly. When you have been shown to be wrong by your own standards would be closer to being correct. You can be completely convinced that you've proven someone else wrong, but if they don't accept your proof, than you're not going to change their mind. The best you can hope to do is convince third parties reading or hearing the exchange. And that, I suspect, is where you're hitting the wall with Ann. I doubt that you've ever shown her to be wrong by the standards which she accepts. It's those standards, primarily axiomatic principles and assumptions, which cause the problem. They are usually unstated, often nebulous, and frequently misunderstood. Two people can be using exactly the same terms, yet mean completely different things. I suspect the gulf between your base assumptions and those of Ann is so great that there is no way you can ever convince her that she is wrong, because she will be convinced that your argument means something completely different than what you think it means. In order to convince someone else, you first need to have a fairly good understanding of their world view, so you can present your argument in terms they will understand. I doubt you understand Ann's world view that well, or you would not consider her the total liar you obviously do. Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (that's only true for analog clocks admittedly, but people are analog objects). Ann, by simple random chance, has to be right more often than you're admitting. > I think they are both Media Whores, who, for all their espoused support of whatever side they have taken, worship in the church of their own personality cult. That I will grant as possible, but what you're defining seems to me to be more of an egomaniac that a Media Whore. A Media Whore would be someone who sells themselves to achieve popular acclaim and popularity, regardless of the cost to themselves. Someone who has an ego on the scale of either Ann or Michael can't really do that. It seems to me that Bill O'Reilly fits that term better. > I don't think Bob Enderle is anything like Ann Coulter. Well, as already noted, I agree, though not for the same reasons. :) > I find some of his stuff obnoxious, but he does make many points that I'm forced to agree with. Many might be pushing it. Some, I'll grant. His recent article on how Microsoft needs to change it's tactics WRT Open Source was one such example. He still wasn't kind to Open Source, but it seemed to be an accurate assessment of Microsoft's past strategy and tactics, that they had not work, and what might work in their place. jimf: > but they all seem to aspire to that role. I think Ann would see herself more as John the Baptist. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 1:27 AM EDT |
> I think Ann would see herself more as John the Baptist. Now jdixon, You know that Ophra claimed that one some time ago. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 3:17 AM EDT |
> You know that Ophra claimed that one some time ago. I've never watch Oprah, so I have no idea. :( I know, I lead a deprived life (yes, that's deprived, not depraved, Dino). |
| tracyanne Mar 15, 2007 3:18 AM EDT |
quote:: When you have been shown to be wrong by your own standards would be closer to being correct. You can be completely convinced that you've proven someone else wrong, but if they don't accept your proof, than you're not going to change their mind. ::quote The fact that I or anyone else hasn't changed Ann Coulter's mind could actually be because she is Intelectually dishonest. In the end if one argues with her on the facts, and she dislikes being shown up, on the facts, to the point where she bans one from her debate forum, as she did with me, then what she has demonstrated is that she is fundamentally dishonest. What's also interesting is that others here are able to point to very public examples of the same sort of behaviour as was my personal experience of Ann Coulter. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 3:38 AM EDT |
> ...hasn't changed Ann Coulter's mind could actually be because she is Intelectually dishonest. Yes, it could be. She's as human and fallible as anyone else. Unfortunately, my personal experience doesn't match yours, and I'm reluctant to reach such a conclusion without such personal experience. And since the forum you mention is no longer available, I can't review your encounters with her. :( I do read Ann's articles, though not that frequently. I'll keep your experience in mind whenever I encounter her work in the future. |
| dcparris Mar 15, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
> I've never watch Oprah, so I have no idea. :( I know, I lead a deprived life (yes, that's deprived, not depraved, Dino). Dino, jdixon lives in WV. Pa called the other day (from WV) and explained that they're going to finally cancel M*A*S*H. Never mind the rest of the country did so thirty years ago; they're just now getting around to it. They haven't discovered Oprah yet. Although there were some West Virginians on the Jenny ??? show where the uncle and nephew slept with the same women. [note to those unaware: I grew up in WV myself and know the stereotype all too well.] |
| SFN Mar 15, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
*tap tap tap* Is this Linux thing on? *tap tap tap* |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 8:37 AM EDT |
dc: I still watch M*A*S*H every weekday...4 episodes 5 to 7 PM Monday through Friday. It's on the Hallmark Channel in San Diego, California. That new stuff hasn't made it out to the west coast yet. On another note, jdixon and Pa must use MEPIS...or is WV a state divided? |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
> is WV a state divided? It's half a state divided, at the very least. Used to be there was just Virginia. |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 9:02 AM EDT |
"Used to be there was just Virginia." ...until Ubuntu came along. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
> On another note, jdixon and Pa must use MEPIS...or is WV a state divided? I guess they can reunite it. Warren now says he's looking to move. What did you do or say to him jdixon? :D |
| DarrenR114 Mar 15, 2007 10:35 AM EDT |
HEY - everyone stop dissing on WV - they stayed loyal to the Union when the rest of Virginia got whiny about the duly elected leadership of the U.S. and decided to incite armed rebellion against the government as a first action instead of attempting to use diplomacy. What is it about the Southern mentality that leads to shoot first, ask later? It's the big reason I find displaying the confederate battle flag so unpatriotic. Southern Pride? Pride in what? Pride in taking up arms against the government and killing those people who disagree with you just because you don't like some laws that were passed? In a society based on law, that is unacceptable. Even the Declaration of Independance tells us that armed rebellion should be an action of last resort. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 10:43 AM EDT |
>What is it about the Southern mentality that leads to shoot first, ask later? You misunderstand entirely. That is not the Southern mentality so much as a reasonable gut reaction to Yankees! |
| DarrenR114 Mar 15, 2007 10:57 AM EDT |
>That is not the Southern mentality so much as a reasonable gut reaction to Yankees! gut reaction I'll grant you (Ulysses S Grant, that is) but reasonable? There are anomalies such as yourself and DC, but I'm pretty sure reasonable is not the most apt of adjectives for those Southerners who continue believe that "the South is gonna do it again." |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 11:41 AM EDT |
"the South is gonna do it again." Ummm.... In the event you haven't notice where big new car plants are being located, as well as quite a few other desirable jobs, the south is, in fact, doing it again. They're just doing it smarter this time. |
| azerthoth Mar 15, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
That just may be a side effect of them opening up the gene pool away from immeadiate family. It shows that they are finally capable of turning a wrench the correct way 2 times out of 3. *evil grin* |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
> they stayed loyal to the Union when the rest of Virginia got whiny about the duly elected leadership of the U.S. and decided to incite armed rebellion against the government as a first action instead of attempting to use diplomacy. OK, as already noted, I'm a West Virginian born and raised. That said, Virginia did not leave the union until after the battle at Fort Sumter. And the left the union properly, in the same manner that the colonies left England, by a proper vote of their representatives. And finally, I've heard that a peace delegation was on the train to Washington when war was declared. So I think claiming that armed rebellion was their first option is stretching things somewhat. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 12:32 PM EDT |
> ...where big new car plants are being located... The big new, non-union, car plants. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 12:34 PM EDT |
> On another note, jdixon and Pa must use MEPIS...or is WV a state divided? Actually, while I've tried Mepis, I used Slackware for years before Mepis was created, and I've never seen a good reason to switch. |
| dinotrac Mar 15, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
>The big new, non-union, car plants. Yup...with all of those non-union jobs paying a whole lot more than that good-old union unemployment. |
| tracyanne Mar 15, 2007 1:14 PM EDT |
quote:: Yes, it could be. She's as human and fallible as anyone else. ::quote I guess we could say that of Mike Moore, Richard Stallman, George Bush, Fidel Castro, The Editors of ZdNet, Bob Enderle...... well anyone. |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
> I guess we could say that of Mike Moore, Richard Stallman, George Bush, Fidel Castro, The Editors of ZdNet, Bob Enderle...... well anyone. Yep. Including, and especially, jdixon. It's always best to keep in mind that all of us make mistakes and have faults and weaknesses. All any of us can do is our best, and sometimes that's woefully inadequate. I've made more than my share of mistakes in my life, some with consequences I would very much like to undo, but can't. I hope that makes me more forgiving of other peoples failures, but I'm not sure. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 15, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
"I guess we could say that of .... well anyone." Indeed. All the more reason never to vest in anyone else the power to coerce others. "There are some troubles from which mankind can never escape. . . . [The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority. As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." --- Benjamin Tucker |
| dcparris Mar 15, 2007 2:48 PM EDT |
> I still watch M*A*S*H every weekday tuxtom: actually, I found it on one of the cable channels here the other night. I *love* M*A*S*H. I think, even given all the episodes I've seen, I still have only seen a few re-runs. I may start devoting some time to that when I get home from work. |
| jimf Mar 15, 2007 2:52 PM EDT |
> > I guess we could say that of Mike Moore, Richard Stallman, George Bush, Fidel Castro, The Editors of ZdNet, Bob Enderle...... well anyone. Oh sure... Any of them 'cept' the ones 'we know' are alien invaders.. or worse! Who knows what's come a creaping out of those old WV coal mines... |
| jdixon Mar 15, 2007 3:56 PM EDT |
> Any of them 'cept' the ones 'we know' are alien invaders.. or worse! Who knows what's come a creaping out of those old WV coal mines... He's on to us DC, time for an "intervention". |
| dcparris Mar 15, 2007 4:30 PM EDT |
:-) |
| tuxtom Mar 15, 2007 4:47 PM EDT |
DC: Watching it right now. Margret's put in for a transfer...leaving the camp. She'll be back permanently in 15 minutes. Definitely the best show ever to grace television. |
| dcparris Mar 15, 2007 5:02 PM EDT |
You bet. They just don't make 'em like that anymore. :-( |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!