I really must remind Mr. Blatham that he evidently missed this post-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you are correct, Frank APisa. I hope that he is toying with me. The problem is that he is toying with me at such a great distance that I can't see him or read him.
I must really conclude that he is miffed at me since I eviscerated him in the past a few times. He really never posts anything that is memorable.
I will match my output of posts backed by evidence and documentation on the Global Warming thread with anything he is ever done.
The problem with Mr. Blatham's posts( although he is very erudite and learned) is that he indulges in repeated bons-mots. He obviously does not realize that they may be mots but they most usually are not bons!
Hi Bernie.
Bernie wrote-
Quote:Otherwise, spendi, you've managed to contribute a fair number of words without making any coherent statement which leaves itself open to any test for veracity.
When you get the-
Quote:oversight body to monitor compliance;
you will get your veracity.
"Wets" is a term Mrs Thatcher coined to describe those who questioned her wisdom.
My pub, or my corner of it to be more precise, considers futility to be the natural order of things.
spendi
Futility seems the inarguable part of the equation. Thus, far and away the least interesting part.
You too are about to sit down and watch football. Have a great day.
Ugliest, dumbest looking chimp I've ever seen.
I am overwhemed by the cogency and intellectual depth of Mr. Apisa's evidence. But I am afraid that it will only convince me of one thing--
Mr. Apisa's complete inability to present evidence and facts. I must regretfully inform Mr. Apisa that I don't read National Enquirer regularly since I find it to be dreadfully inaccurate.
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from Mr. Blatham. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-
I will post again. Mr. Blatham, who has been in a snit ever since I defeated him soundly, will not respond.
No matter. This post will show that he is all bluster in his statements but has no evidence.
Again-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham can back up his statement that "conservative voices outnumber liberal voices and have done(?) for some time". If he cannot post an authoritative link that backs up his statement, I must regretfully conclude that he is indulging in wishful thinking to back up his thesis.
BernardR wrote:I am overwhemed by the cogency and intellectual depth of Mr. Apisa's evidence. But I am afraid that it will only convince me of one thing--
Mr. Apisa's complete inability to present evidence and facts. I must regretfully inform Mr. Apisa that I don't read National Enquirer regularly since I find it to be dreadfully inaccurate.
I only present evidence and facts when debating with a rational human being capable of understanding and rationally dealing with them.
So obviously, I need not present any during discussions with you.
Frank Apisa wrote:BernardR wrote:I am overwhemed by the cogency and intellectual depth of Mr. Apisa's evidence. But I am afraid that it will only convince me of one thing--
Mr. Apisa's complete inability to present evidence and facts. I must regretfully inform Mr. Apisa that I don't read National Enquirer regularly since I find it to be dreadfully inaccurate.
I only present evidence and facts when debating with a rational human being capable of understanding and rationally dealing with them.
So obviously, I need not present any during discussions with you.
We are all in the process of learning the same thing.
Amigo wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:BernardR wrote:I am overwhemed by the cogency and intellectual depth of Mr. Apisa's evidence. But I am afraid that it will only convince me of one thing--
Mr. Apisa's complete inability to present evidence and facts. I must regretfully inform Mr. Apisa that I don't read National Enquirer regularly since I find it to be dreadfully inaccurate.
I only present evidence and facts when debating with a rational human being capable of understanding and rationally dealing with them.
So obviously, I need not present any during discussions with you.
We are all in the process of learning the same thing.
It'd make as much sense for you to debate a brick, Amigo. His mind, such as it is, is shut tight! Knee jerking doesn't take any openness at all.
I'm apoalled by bernie's pomposity!
I am still waiting for evidence and documentation from Mr. Blatham. BernardR. Evidently, he is a believer in the hit and run theory--Post a ridiculous statement for which you have no evidence and hope that no one notices-
I have come to realize I will never get that evidence of documentation.
Since you did not mention the Documentation you needed,. Mr. Parados, it is, you must understand, quite impossible for it to be given to you.
Try again!! This time list the documentation you need.
"The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary."
- George Orwell, on "Doublethink" from his book of faction, "1984"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Without the complicity of the mainstream media, the 9/11 cover-up could not exist. Those who control the mainstream media control the brainstem of our collective consciousness. When those charged with being the skeptical inquirers are neither skeptical nor do they inquire, the only phrase for it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists fail to investigate the obvious, it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists only investigate that which distracts the public from the obvious, it is even deeper complicity."
-- Barrie Zwicker
BernardR wrote:Since you did not mention the Documentation you needed,. Mr. Parados, it is, you must understand, quite impossible for it to be given to you.
Try again!! This time list the documentation you need.
Nice of you to attack your own quote as being silly.
Even you think your statements have no meaning.
I am beginning to think you have alzheimer's Bernie. Have you been tested? Perhaps, you should go see a nuerologist and get tested. You can't seem to recall when you posted something.
Why should anyone here document anything for the likes of Bernie/Massa who already has his mind set and who only recognizes three authorities: Posner, Lindzen and Bloom?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you did not mention the Documentation you needed,. Mr. Parados, it is, you must understand, quite impossible for it to be given to you.
Try again!! This time list the documentation you need.
This story represents a slightly different problem than the other examples we've talked about. Previously, we've mainly looked at the control/management of information, for political purposes, from an authoritarian central control point...usually, the White House.
The example below gives us a look at information control several tiers down in the workings of a government agency or a government funded agency. This case isn't any sort of anomoly. It is a consequence of a strategic move to flow government dollars to groups who are doctrinally and politically allied with the White House/RNC. The other half of this equation relates to who received those dollars previously. The strategic term for what is going on here is "defunding the left".
Quote:Pregnancy Centers Found to Give False Information on Abortion
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Page A08
Federally funded "pregnancy resource centers" are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.
The report said that 20 of 23 federally funded centers contacted by staff investigators requesting information about an unintended pregnancy were told false or misleading information about the potential risks of an abortion.
The pregnancy resource centers, which are often affiliated with antiabortion religious groups, have received about $30 million in federal money since 2001, according to the report, requested by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). The report concluded that the exaggerations "may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701145.html
