Stop...*giggle*...what?

[jimpeel]

Still reading that site even after finding out who funds it huh?

I don't care who funds it. The point is whether what is being posted there is an accurate dissertation on the subject matter.

He references THIS ARTICLE. Does Drudge also fund ACSH?

The fact is that you don't care who funds a site either. What you care about is whether they are saying what you want to hear. Funding is moot.

If all of us went solely on the basis of who, or what entity, were funding a website then we would have to simply stop caring about facts and judge everything instead by the funding entity. Regardless of the credibility or accuracy of the article the funding entity automatically renders the article inaccurate and incredible.

Can you point out anything in the referenced article which is exagerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted? Of course not. You are too busy worrying about the funding entity.

 

[jimpeel]

The truly ignorant don't even realize that all the cars pollute more than the textile mills.

Then why didn't you post a pic of a highway full of cars? Why did you choose a pic of an entity which, by your own adsmission, is not a major pollution source compared to cars?

 

[spike]

I don't care who funds it. The point is whether what is being posted there is an accurate dissertation on the subject matter.

Sorry Jim, after hearing you complain about sources in the mainstream media and people with an "axe to grind" it's just fun to point out your hypocrisy when you use such a blatantly biased site.

 

[spike]

Then why didn't you post a pic of a highway full of cars? Why did you choose a pic of an entity which, by your own adsmission, is not a major pollution source compared to cars?

Still a good example of how obvious it is that man can and does affect the environment. I made no claim that it was the top culprit.

Pretty simple really.

 

[jimpeel]

Sorry Jim, after hearing you complain about sources in the mainstream media and people with an "axe to grind" it's just fun to point out your hypocrisy when you use such a blatantly biased site.

I have, in the past, posted government sites and they didn't satisfy you either.

Of course the site is biased -- just as the sites you post are biased to your side of the argument. Junkscience tears apart the junk science being foisted on us by those with an agenda ie: an ax to grind.

Again ... Can you point out anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted?

Can you find ANY inaccuracies in the article regardless oif who funds the website -- be they George Soros or Matt Drudge?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Then why didn't you post a pic of a highway full of cars? Why did you choose a pic of an entity which, by your own adsmission, is not a major pollution source compared to cars?

Because an apples to apples discussion is one some folks can never hope to make sense in. Hence, they bring oranges to the table. It leaves them an escape route to scurry down when (not if) the facts begin to disprove their ridiculous statements. And we all know that nothing scurries like a rat. It's the last line of defense. Misdirection instead of facts. Evasiveness instead of logic. Muddy the issue rather than clean up the problem. Some folks live and breathe by it. They can't help it. They built their house on sand rather than a rock. They're almost to be pitied.






Almost.

 

[spike]

I have, in the past, posted government sites and they didn't satisfy you either.

Of course the site is biased -- just as the sites you post are biased to your side of the argument. Junkscience tears apart the junk science being foisted on us by those with an agenda ie: an ax to grind.

Again ... Can you point out anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted?

I'm not even going to read the article because I know the site is full of shit. I was just enjoying pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.

 

[spike]

Because an apples to apples discussion is one some folks can never hope to make sense in. Hence, they bring oranges to the table. It leaves them an escape route to scurry down when (not if) the facts begin to disprove their ridiculous statements.

I see you claim that textile mill vs cars is apples/oranges.

That was in reference to this statement.

"believe that humanity can destroy the planet by driving a certain car."

It's not clear what your point is, but I imagine you did that to leave an escape route to scurry down when the facts disprove your ridiculous statements.

But trying to decipher a point there it would seem that you're saying that there's no way cars could effect the environment but textile mills could. However, textile mills are made by humanity.

Also cars make more pollution than textile mills so your apples/oranges argument doesn't even make sense.

You might want to clarify. Or scurry.

 

[jimpeel]

I'm not even going to read the article because I know the site is full of shit.

Hands over ears and repeat after me:
"La,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la,la"

I was just enjoying pointing out your blatant hypocrisy.

Where is the hypocrisy in posting a link to a website that documents the facts as I agree with them? Do you even know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?

So you readily admit that you cannot point out anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted. Glad we got that out of the way.

You cannot point out a single flaw in the article because you won't read it; but it is full of bullshit anyway just because you say it is. ie: Don't try to confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.

Now THAT is hypocrisy.

 

[spike]

Where is the hypocrisy in posting a link to a website that documents the facts as I agree with them?

Complaining about mainstream media sources and articles you think were written by someone with an axe to grind and then posting articles as reference from a site with an agenda and an axe to grind is hypocrisy.

So you readily admit that you cannot point out anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted. Glad we got that out of the way.

No, I'm telling you your source is blatantly biased corporate funded bullshit. It's probably good for people like you who already have their minds made up and don't want facts but others aren't interested in propaganda and might find a more neutral source more interesting.

It is fun pointing out your hypocrisy though. So keep it up.

 

[jimpeel]

Complaining about mainstream media sources and articles you think were written by someone with an axe to grind and then posting articles as reference from a site with an agenda and an axe to grind is hypocrisy.

Mainstream media sources deny that they have a Liberal bias while they demonstrate that bias every single day. Junkscience admits that they are a Conservative website and makes no pretense of their politics.

Know the difference.

No, I'm telling you your source is blatantly biased corporate funded bullshit. It's probably good for people like you who already have their minds made up and don't want facts but others aren't interested in propaganda and might find a more neutral source more interesting.

It is fun pointing out your hypocrisy though. So keep it up.

So I'm sure that you would have no trouble in pointing us to that "more neutral source" so we can all become as socially enlightened as you. Please edify us so that we might enjoy this "more neutral source" together. Perhaps a few coruses of "Kumbaya" would be in order after we have all had a chance to digest the wonders of enlightenment such a site would bring us.

How does my pointing out the bias of other sites which deny that bias have anything to do with "hypocrisy"? You obviously do not know the meaning of the word.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

So you puff up your chest and throw out a word that you haven't the slightest idea what it means, use it completely out of context, and then brag about it.

 

[spike]

Mainstream media sources deny that they have a Liberal bias while they demonstrate that bias every single day. Junkscience admits that they are a Conservative website and makes no pretense of their politics.

Know the difference.

Oh I know junkscience is highly biased not to be trusted source.

How does my pointing out the bias of other sites which deny that bias have anything to do with "hypocrisy"? You obviously do not know the meaning of the word.

I don't know how much more plain this can be Jim. You have complained about others sources even when it's mainstream as being biased and having an axe to grind but you used as a source a site that is blatantly biased with an axe to grind.

Hypocrisy.

Kind of like someone who acts against prostitution but then uses prostitutes. Or someone who speaks out against gays and then turns out to be gay.

 

[BeardofPants]

*WANK WANK

 

[chcr]

*WANK WANK

Stop that! Yer makin' me all flustered and such.

 

[jimpeel]

Oh I know junkscience is highly biased not to be trusted source.

How? You refuse to read the article.

I don't know how much more plain this can be Jim. You have complained about others sources even when it's mainstream as being biased and having an axe to grind but you used as a source a site that is blatantly biased with an axe to grind.

The difference being that the sources I deride DENY that they are biased even though they display that bias on a daily basis. They are hypocrites. There is nothing hypocritical about junkscience because they admit they are a conservative site.

For me to be hypocritical in my use of junkscience would be me using them as a source even though I did not believe in anything they state ie: "An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction."

I gave you the definition of hypocrisy and yet you apparently refuse to read that either. You simply continue to use the word improperly over and over again.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Kind of like someone who acts against prostitution but then uses prostitutes.

Like Jimmy Swaggart or James Bakker.

Or someone who speaks out against gays and then turns out to be gay.

Like Ted Haggard.

Now THAT would be hypocrisy.

 

[spike]

For me to be hypocritical in my use of junkscience would be me using them as a source even though I did not believe in anything they state ie: "An expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction."

Jim, it's simple. It is hypocritical to chastise others for something you do yourself. You have complained about others sources as being biased or having an axe to grind yet you used a far more obviously biased source then most here would consider.

Get it yet?

 

[2minkey]

if he's utterly incapable of understanding that his sources are biased (because obviously they are correct - they support his vieW!), does that make him any less of a hypocrite?

 

[jimpeel]

I don't know how much more plain this can be Jim. You have complained about others sources even when it's mainstream as being biased and having an axe to grind but you used as a source a site that is blatantly biased with an axe to grind.

Here is a primary example of what I have been complaining about with the mainstream press:

It takes four days for NBC to mention Spitzer political affiliation.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080314.asp#1

On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, substitute NBC Nightly News anchor Ann Curry and reporter Mike Taibbi failed to identify disgraced outgoing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as a Democrat, but on Thursday night Curry finally informed NBC viewers of the party affiliation -- a fact network journalists always consider relevant when a Republican gets caught in scandalous behavior. Curry set up a story on incoming Governor David Paterson by uttering the word she's avoided all week: "Now to the fast moving developments in the wake of the revelations that New York's Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer was a client of a prostitution service. NBC's Mike Taibbi now with the man who's to take over for Spitzer on Monday."

For the record, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric cited Spitzer's party on Monday and Wednesday nights while ABC's World News didn't until Wednesday evening.

The morning shows have completely blacked out the fact Spitzer is a Democrat. The closest NBC's Today show came this week was in this question from Meredith Vieira to Tim Russert on Thursday's show: "Let's talk very quickly about Governor Spitzer's resignation. He was a super-delegate for Senator Clinton. So she loses his vote. Beyond that, do you see any other fallout for the Democrats?"

A 20:100 ratio for the press:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080314.asp#2

The big three broadcast networks have gone out of their way to avoid labeling scandal-scarred New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as a "Democrat." An examination of the fifteen ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows through Wednesday night finds Spitzer was called a Democrat just 20 percent of the time -- twice on CBS, once on ABC, and never on NBC. So, how do the networks treat Republicans involved in sex scandals? Always, always as "Republicans." Looking at the ABC, CBS, NBC morning and evening shows in the days after the most recent scandals broke, Republican Senators David Vitter (July) and Larry Craig (August) were labeled "Republican" on every show (100 percent). Yet for Democrat Spitzer, four out of five news programs (80 percent) have skipped his party identification.

But ask these news outlets if they are slanted to the left or right and they will deny they are anything other than middle-of-the-road balanced news.

I'm sure that because I got the information for this post from a Conservative site that it is all just one big lie and they planted false information by hacking Nexis-Lexis.

 

[jimpeel]

if he's utterly incapable of understanding that his sources are biased ...

How am I "utterly incapable of understanding that his sources are biased" when I posted in POST #25 "Of course the site (junkscience.com) is biased -- just as the sites you post are biased to your side of the argument."

I find it interesting that you have no problem with the fact that he cannot point out anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted. He admits "I'm not even going to read the article because I know the site is full of shit." and "Oh I know junkscience is highly biased not to be trusted source."

Can YOU find anything in the referenced article which is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted; or are you also scared to death of the website?

(because obviously they are correct - they support his vieW!), ...

Yet you also have no probvlem that he posts links and articles to heavily biased liberal websites. I read what he posts and then I pick it apart based on opposing knowledge. He refuses to do so because his mind is made up and no amount of facts, regardless form what source, will deter him from the path he has chosen unless those facts agree 100% with his position.

does that make him any less of a hypocrite?

It is not hypocritical to point out the hypocrisy of those with a bias who deny that bias even though it is blatantly obvious. I admit that junkscience is a conservatively biased site. What you, and others here, have failed to do is to show that what they publish is exaggerated, inaccurate, incorrectly referenced, or misquoted. It is rather hard to do so when one simply declares the site to be "(conservative) blatantly biased corporate funded bullshit" and then counter with links to liberal blatantly biased corporate funded bullshit.

Where is the hypocrisy now?

 

[Gonz]

It takes four days for NBC to mention Spitzer political affiliation.

The original NY Times story mentioned it in paragraph 3. The rewrite moved it to paragraph 15. Wanna bet, if it was a (R) doing this crap it's be the leading word...in every paragraph.