Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Nimh,

I never attempted to make the argument that MYDD garnered more traffic than conservative blogs w/out comments did. Just that most of the TOP conservative blogs don't allow them. I think that in my last post I showed that out of the top five conservative blogs, only one allowed comments. My only mistake was thinking that it would be Redstate instead of LGF.

What is your definition of 'popular?' I would think that those sites who recieve the most visits daily would be considered 'popular.' And those, 4 out of 5 times, don't allow comments.

Please understand that if I am fallacious in my analysis here I am not trying to be obtuse or push a point, Nimh; given your long history of blowing everyone else out of the water with statistical analysis here, I would be more than happy to bow to your superior knowledge in this matter if you believe I am in error.

Fox,

here is a three-part series with thousands of discussion comments on defining the Liberal platform and core values.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/12/23911/3211

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/1956/07246

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/13/124929/317

Cheers to all

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I never attempted to make the argument that MYDD garnered more traffic than conservative blogs w/out comments did. Just that most of the TOP conservative blogs don't allow them. I think that in my last post I showed that out of the top five conservative blogs, only one allowed comments. [..]

What is your definition of 'popular?' I would think that those sites who recieve the most visits daily would be considered 'popular.' And those, 4 out of 5 times, don't allow comments.

I would say 20 thousand individual visits a day counts as "popular", wouldn't you? That's more than Drudge gets. Hell, I'd call 10 thousand visits a day pretty popular - its 30 times as much as any of the sites I've managed get.

You said that there are "very few popular [conservative blogs] with comments", that we wouldnt be able to name 10, hell, even 5 of 'em, that "out of the top right-wing blogs, only ONE allows for comments". Of those assertions, you've proved that the last one holds true if you take the top five (rather than, say, the top 10 or something). I think you've overstated your point and made an unwarranted generalisation.

0 Replies

Reading through the Kos comments strictly related to his outline of proposed emphasis for the Democrat party, I will agree this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Cyclop.

So that's one. Are there any others?

0 Replies

Timber writes

Quote:

Fox, perhaps the problem you're having there stems from what amounts to discussion and examination of what serve as as issues according to the opposing ideologic mindsets. What some folks take to be issues have very little substance - witness the current digression on this thread.

Yeah, but I'm a glutton for punishment. I keep hoping there are a substantial number of people on the planet who can actually reason out the criteria for holding an opinion and express it is understandable terms without having to insult something or somebody. (I don't mean this to imply that I never say anything insulting--I'm only saying it is possible to make an argument without being insulting.) Smile

Even on the Kos site, what I'm reading is mostly sloganeering, but the tone is so much more reasonable than what you find on many left tilted sites, I am intrigued.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Fox, perhaps the problem you're having there stems from what amounts to discussion and examination of what serve as as issues according to the opposing ideologic mindsets. What some folks take to be issues have very little substance - witness the current digression on this thread.

To be honest, Timber, I dont care a whit about who says "MSM" and how many blogs allow for what.

Only thing that gets up my nerves is posters making blanket statements backed up by little fact and using them to hit each other over the head with.

That goes, foremost, for Fox blisfully declaring that one is "far more likely to find verifiable useful information on a conservative site than on a liberal site" and that "liberal sites seem to be mostly forums for bashing the United States [and] George Bush" (whereas "conservative sites", in the same kind of blanket generalisation way, I suppose consistently "outline conservative ideals or values and provide a rationale for them").

It goes for Cyclo claiming that right-wing blogs just "don't allow comments and participation in the open way that Liberal blogs do", because they want to be able to "lie, spin, whatever" without anyone "there to call [them] on it" (unlike, say, "Talking Points" Josh Marshall, whose blog I suppose doesnt have a comment function for more laudable reasons).

It goes for - well, all that.

But yeah, the hysterical tendency to focus on ever new trivia - the Michael Jackson trial instead of debt cancellation, the toileted Kuran instead of the innocent Afghan who was tortured to death by US troops, the Vets for Truth instead of nuclear proliferation, Jessica Lynch instead of 100,000 Iraqi war dead, Cheney's lesbian daughter instead of how 1 out of 8 young black men in America is now in jail, etc, etc - I do think it's bizarre. And exasperating. (And no, German, Hungarian and Russian TV all did not switch live to Santa Rosa to cover the Michael Jackson jury).

Thats why I usually dip into these US threads only momentarily nowadays, and head back to the International News, Europe etc forums when the unbearable lightness of rancour starts getting to me.

[edited to replace "gay marriage" by "Cheney's lesbian daughter".]

0 Replies

And I find it obnoxious and offensive that somebody cannot cite their personal experience without having a blanket criticism or inference thrown at them Nimh. I was citing my experience with blogs. I gave you an opportunity to be helpful in re-educating me if that was an option, and you chose instead to be personally insulting.

And if you don't like the subject matter others finds interesting, you are aware you can start a brand new thread on any subject of your choice, don't you?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Only thing that gets up my nerves is posters making blanket statements backed up by little fact and using them to hit each other over the head with....

Jessica Lynch instead of 100,000 Iraqi war dead,

0 Replies

An ego thing - nimh is an able and indefatigible analytical statistician, one who's views, projections, and conclusions often have run counter to my own, though the pair of us largely have drawn on the same raw data. I believe the overall political developments over the period through which he and I have contested one another have afforded nimh more surprise and disappointmet than has been provided me by the same events. Case in point:

0 Replies

LOL Timber.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And I find it obnoxious and offensive that somebody cannot cite their personal experience without having a blanket criticism or inference thrown at them Nimh.

What "blanket" criticism, Fox? I would say that my criticism was quite specific.

Your "personal experience", judging on the post I am criticizing, approximately comes down to "conservative sites good, liberal sites bad".

That's way off into the realm of the irrational - myopic is the word I think - and that is my all too specific criticism of that post up there. You can't really expect people to take you seriously with statements like that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And I find it obnoxious and offensive that somebody cannot cite their personal experience without having a blanket criticism or inference thrown at them Nimh.

What "blanket" criticism, Fox? I would say that my criticism was quite specific.

Your "personal experience", judging on the post I am criticizing, approximately comes down to "conservative sites good, liberal sites bad".

That's way off into the realm of the irrational - myopic is the word I think - and that is my all too specific criticism of that post up there. You can't really expect people to take you seriously with statements like that.

Now, here, nimh and I seem to be in general agreement ... blanket statements, broad-brush generalizations - rarely prove out when analyzed.

0 Replies

Nimh, you changed my very personal pronoun "I" to "one", which was not just careless, it was dishonest. And you changed my opinion very clearly targeted at my own experience to an assumption that I was making a 'blanket generalization". More disingenuousness to get in your jabs.

If you have any sites to recommend that would dispute my opinion, I would be glad to see them. Cyclop provided one. And he even did it without being insulting. And I appreciated it.

And then you follow with your own 'blanket generalization' of how trivial we Americans are in our discussions. Well fine. If you think we are so shallow, then by all means you should leave us alone and focus on Europe which is probably much more satisfactory to your no doubt superior sensibilities.

0 Replies

Nimh

Quote:

You said that there are "very few popular [conservative blogs] with comments", that we wouldnt be able to name 10, hell, even 5 of 'em, that "out of the top right-wing blogs, only ONE allows for comments". Of those assertions, you've proved that the last one holds true if you take the top five (rather than, say, the top 10 or something). I think you've overstated your point and made an unwarranted generalisation.

Point conceeded Nimh though I still believe there is a very interesting conversation possible about not only the different natures of Blogs on the right and left, but the different Goals as well.

I noticed later on that you (correctly) pointed out that Talking Points Memo, one of the most popular liberal sites, doesn't have comments; but I would advise ya to check out

www.tpmcafe.com

Newly minted. Formed from pressure from the audience to include comments and participation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

An ego thing - nimh is an able and indefatigible analytical statistician, one who's views, projections, and conclusions often have run counter to my own, though the pair of us largely have drawn on the same raw data. I believe the overall political developments over the period through which he and I have contested one another have afforded nimh more surprise and disappointmet than has been provided me by the same events. Case in point:

img BUSH WINS PRESIDENCY /img

Timberlandko is an indefatigable analyst as well, who has indeed posed many a view, projection and conclusion counter to mine.

However, I'd submit that Timber's assertions at times tend to be flawed - possibly because the eagerness to be proven right leads him to an all too cursory perusal of said raw data.

This post here, regarding the "surprises" I've come to face over my "projections and conclusions" would be a perfect example.

Lessee ..

My first prediction here, regarding the US Presidential elections, was that there was a 60% chance of Bush getting elected. As the election drew nearer, I revised my prediction and suggested there was a 55% chance of Bush getting elected, and that he would win by a 5% margin. Close to election time, my third prediction was that Bush would win 280 in the EC, and Kerry 258, shortly after revised to a Bush victory of 271 to 267 in the EC. Finally, my fourth prediction on the very eve of the elections was that Bush would win the popular vote but Kerry would win the EC by 272 to 266, which I annotated saying that "It feels irresponsibly optimistic - I can't quite believe he'd pull the whole bunch off -- but hey, if you can't believe in the cause the night before, when ever will you."

So you see, there is one slight problem with Timber's glee ... not for the first time, it's based on a very selective reading of raw data Mr. Green

.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:
Only thing that gets up my nerves is posters making blanket statements backed up by little fact and using them to hit each other over the head with....

Jessica Lynch instead of 100,000 Iraqi war dead,

The number of civilian Iraqi casualties at the moment is between 22,000 and 25,000, according to iraqbodycount.net. Estimates have varied though: the British medical journal The Lancet for example in October 2004 wrote that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war.

The number of Iraqi military casualties are a big unknown, but are estimated to be a multiple of the number of killed civilians. Even if we disregard the Lancet numbers, thus, we are therefore in total probably talking in the upper five-digit numbers.

That said, I should not have posted the exact (six-digit) number of 100,000 without reservation.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I noticed later on that you (correctly) pointed out that Talking Points Memo, one of the most popular liberal sites, doesn't have comments; but I would advise ya to check out

www.tpmcafe.com

Newly minted. Formed from pressure from the audience to include comments and participation.

Cool!

0 Replies

I still love ya, nimh - you're fun to argue with.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh, you changed my very personal pronoun "I" to "one", which was not just careless, it was dishonest. And you changed my opinion very clearly targeted at my own experience to an assumption that I was making a 'blanket generalization". More disingenuousness to get in your jabs.

Oh come of it Fox. OK, so you find it "far more likely to find verifiable useful information on a conservative site than on a liberal site". You also wrote that: "The liberal sites seem to be mostly forums for bashing the United States, George Bush, anything to do with the military [etc]" and that "You find very little there outlining liberal ideals or values and providing a rationale for them."

Now how am I amiss in calling those statements "blanket generalisations", exactly? I'd say they are pretty blanket generalisations, and as such, off into the realm of the myopic/irrational. I don't think people will take you seriously with statements like that.

Now what "blanket criticism" I'm exactly supposed to be levelling at you if I say so, I don't know, but I take it from you that it was a "personally insulting", "obnoxious and offensive" one, not to mention "disingenious".

Foxfyre wrote:

If you think we are so shallow, then by all means you should leave us alone and focus on Europe which is probably much more satisfactory to your no doubt superior sensibilities.

I will, shortly! Razz

Foxfyre wrote:

And if you don't like the subject matter others finds interesting, you are aware you can start a brand new thread on any subject of your choice, don't you?

If you would like to join in on any of my following, current threads you are more than welcome to:

Terror or insurgency in Uzbekistan, US Ally?

Elections in Germany update: Turn to the right

President Bush, Yalta and the Baltic States/Eastern Europe

France + Holland say NO - signal of a political watershed?

Democratisation in the Middle East - the debate

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

Now how am I amiss in calling those statements "blanket generalisations", exactly? I'd say they are pretty blanket generalisations, and as such, off into the realm of the myopic/irrational. I don't think people will take you seriously with statements like that.

Now what "blanket criticism" I'm exactly supposed to be levelling at you if I say so, I don't know, but I take it from you that it was a "personally insulting", "obnoxious and offensive" one, not to mention "disingenious".

When you change my specific and carefully selected wording so that you can infer more than what I say, you are amiss. Even dishonest if it is done to provide license for excoriating remarks.

I was careful to limit my comments to my own experience with liberal sites I had visited. I was also careful to not indict ALL sites with the observations; something you were not careful to do when you criticized Americans for the subject matter of their discussions. Nevertheless, I wouldn't even have mentioned your faux pas had it not been so hypocritical even in your eagerness to criticize me.

I would accept your (and Timber's) criticism if it was valid. I dislike blanket generalizations as much as you claim that you do, and when (more than a year ago) I realized I was making them by word if not by intention, I have made a dedicated effort to not make them except in fun.

You have accused me of what I did not do. And you were out of line. It would be no big deal if you had not made such a big deal out of it.

And, evenso, I think it would be a loss to A2K if you don't come around now and then. I'm pretty sure you would find people sharing your interest in some of the areas you think we should be discussing. All you have to do is start a thread.

0 Replies

Just and only for me, because I'm now more confused than usually:

I can't see (that is here, on my monitor) the slightest difference between your original post and the one in nimh's quotation of it.

What did I miss?

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know