PDA

View Full Version : Is this graph remotely accurate? (just asking)



S0Noma
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ginormous bar graph shows folly of Iraq spending vs energy spending

So how much more does the Bush Administration spend on the Iraq War than it spends on energy R&amp;D? Answer: a big-ass number. But a number doesn't really get across the sheer magnitude of these mis-allocated resources. This bar graph does a better job. (Be prepared to scroll down. A LOT.) <hr /></blockquote> http://sciam.vo.llnwd.net/o16/60s/e3834_bargraph.gif

web page (http://www.60secondscience.com/archive/ginormous-bar-graph-shows-foll.php)

Deeman3
11-20-2007, 05:02 PM
I hope not but I'd like to see the same graph for the last 20 years and committments from all candidates on the graphs for the next four years.

bamadog
11-20-2007, 07:00 PM
"So how much more does the Bush Administration spend on the Iraq War than it spends on energy R&amp;D? Answer: a big-ass number." (quote Sonoma)

Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?

eg8r
11-21-2007, 06:43 AM
Why do you answer every question with another question? We already have qtip on the board for that.

eg8r

S0Noma
11-21-2007, 07:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Why do you answer every question with another question? We already have qtip on the board for that.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Shhhh...Eg8r, he's twyin' ta suckapunch me...

Not to worry, Bambi still needs a caboose for that AZB-train he likes to drag around behind him.

Maybe he can lure one of our board conservatives into joining him and his buttbuddys for yet another fun round of 'The Rules of Argumentation According to How He &amp; LWW Make Them Up'?

http://i18.tinypic.com/6y1t0uh.jpg

SKennedy
11-21-2007, 10:07 AM
You're awful! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Where do you find this stuff?
This conservative wants no part of that train...not even the caboose!
I assume those dogs are from a kennel in San Fran?

Qtec
11-21-2007, 10:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Why do you answer every question with another question? We already have qtip on the board for that.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Once again you fall flat on your face. You just did the same as he did, ie, answer him with a question. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Q....

bamadog
11-21-2007, 10:53 AM
Do YOU even understand what you posted?
If so, answer my question.

wolfdancer
11-21-2007, 11:37 AM
It's more remotely accurate then the AZB "Les Trois Mousquetaires"
But, it's all for a good cause...we're spreading Democracy, and fulfilling the prophecies in Revelations.
Are you ready for the Rapture....and will it have a negative effect on the stock market?
web page (http://http://www.raptureready.com/)
http://www.raptureready.com/wallpaper/vwp7b.jpg

eg8r
11-21-2007, 03:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Once again you fall flat on your face. You just did the same as he did, ie, answer him with a question. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, he never asked me a question you goofball. The question was to someone else whom he was responding to. Keep your head in the sand qtip.

eg8r

Qtec
11-22-2007, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Once again you fall flat on your face. You just did the same as he did, ie, answer him with a question. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, he never asked me a question you goofball. The question was to someone else whom he was responding to. Keep your head in the sand qtip.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.
Of course he wasn't asking YOU. YOU decided to reply to his post, not adressed to you, with a Q of your own. YOU totally IGNORED his post did the same thing YOU accuse him of doing. ie answering a Q with a Q.

TRY and keep up Goofy.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
11-23-2007, 06:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.
<hr /></blockquote> Hey qtip, you looked like a fool when you jumped in on your response, call it what you want. As far as whether there was anything wrong with his question, that is a strawman. Who cares.

eg8r

Qtec
11-23-2007, 07:58 AM
I accept your capitulation. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Your wife must be an angel to put up with you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Happy holidays. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

bamadog
11-24-2007, 12:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>


<hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.
Of course he wasn't asking YOU. YOU decided to reply to his post, not adressed to you, with a Q of your own. YOU totally IGNORED his post did the same thing YOU accuse him of doing. ie answering a Q with a Q.

TRY and keep up Goofy.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Q,
Yes the question was reasonable, as you noted.
But Sonoma had no answer for it. His post was just a clumsy attempt to bash Bush by conflating two unrelated pieces of data. It had all the intellectual honesty of a Rosie O'Donnel rant.

S0Noma
11-24-2007, 03:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.
Of course he wasn't asking YOU. YOU decided to reply to his post, not adressed to you, with a Q of your own. YOU totally IGNORED his post did the same thing YOU accuse him of doing. ie answering a Q with a Q.

TRY and keep up Goofy.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Q,
Yes the question was reasonable, as you noted.
But Sonoma had no answer for it. His post was just a clumsy attempt to bash Bush by conflating two unrelated pieces of data. It had all the intellectual honesty of a Rosie O'Donnel rant. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Bambi, Bambi, Bambi, please refer to the OP that started this thread. Notice anything about the question contained in the title line? Yes, you got it - that was MY question! Not the one that you refer to in your response (see misquote you attempt to attribute to me - circled in blue).

http://i7.tinypic.com/8eh1thl.jpg

Here's my post with the ACTUAL question I asked circled in red.

http://i15.tinypic.com/6wyfpuc.jpg

Never mind that you ignored it and made a total of three posts in the thread none of which addressed it.

You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension. I mean, I did ask a direct question and you pretend that I actually asked something else (see text above circled in blue). Is it possible that you simply like to ignore the facts so that you can hastily jump on to your political soapbox and harangue the crowd with your stilted political views? Heaven forbid!

I ask you this because you followed your first post by asking me IF I UNDERSTOOD MY OWN QUESTION!?!?! When apparently you did not! Bams - you gotta know that the word 'irony' comes into play here in a big way.

http://i14.tinypic.com/6kz8bo4.jpg

Actually, Bamster - I DID understand the question that I posted but apparently you didn't. How strange - and now you are demanding that I '...answer my (your) question.' about a question that I didn't ask when you, yourself, have yet to take the time to answer my ACTUAL question (see text circled in red above).

Oh wait, you are pretending that I actually asked a different question and I'm supposed to fall for your effort to misdirect the thread? Is that it?

Well, it's not going to fly. No one here is going to swallow a spoonful of your turdsoup my valiant nincompoop wannabe nemeses from AZB - least of all me.

But wait - let's take a look at your third post in the thread - mind you this one like the other two also ignores the original question (see text circled in red above). Now you're three for three!

http://i10.tinypic.com/7206ofq.jpg

You finally acknowledge that the original question was 'reasonable' but you appear to be upset because I didn't answer it. WTF, Bambi? What are you thinking? I asked a question (see text circled in red above) and you ignore it - pretend I've asked something that I didn't - refuse to answer my question yourself and then accuse me of having committed some kind egregious error because I haven't answered it myself? How does that work, exactly? Here comes that irony thing again!

You finish with a flourish having decided that I was Bush bashing and that I am 'intellectually dishonest'. Once again, if any of the rest of you are following along here, Bambi has NOT answered my original question but has now degenerated even further into personally attacking the messenger.

Intellectual dishonesty? How would a man of your obvious character know what that was, Bambi? Personal experience?

That would be my guess.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma



</font color>

bamadog
11-24-2007, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Q,
Yes the question was reasonable, as you noted.
But Sonoma had no answer for it. His post was just a clumsy attempt to bash Bush by conflating two unrelated pieces of data. It had all the intellectual honesty of a Rosie O'Donnel rant. <hr /></blockquote>

















You seem to be the one up on your political soapbox, talking about "misallocated" funds. Don't try to deny that this was an attempt to bash the Bush administration, it is obvious.

And speaking of problems with reading comprehension, Qtec stated that MY question was reasonable, not yours. And I acknowledged that.

Finally, are you so desperate to win one of your little semantic arguments, and appear oh so clever, that you will go into these paroxysms of sarcasm to avoid real discussion? Because that's what it looks like to me.
And I'll bet I'm not alone.

Someone asked the question, what's wrong with this board? Well I think the answer is Sonoma

Now do you want to discuss your original point of ,the supposed, misallocated funds, or do your want to continue with you junior high school "gotcha" antics?
Because your schtick is getting kinda old.

The reason I asked my original question was for clarification. The govt's responsibility is to defend the citizens, not spend tax money on research projects better left to private industry.

Do you want to discuss this?

S0Noma
11-24-2007, 04:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Q,
Yes the question was reasonable, as you noted.
But Sonoma had no answer for it. His post was just a clumsy attempt to bash Bush by conflating two unrelated pieces of data. It had all the intellectual honesty of a Rosie O'Donnel rant. <hr /></blockquote>

You seem to be the one up on your political soapbox, talking about "misallocated" funds. Don't try to deny that this was an attempt to bash the Bush administration, it is obvious.



And speaking of problems with reading comprehension, Qtec stated that MY question was reasonable, not yours. And I acknowledged that.

<font color="blue">Good point - he was referring to your question as 'reasonable'. I was incorrect in suggesting that he was referring to my OP. Now, I'd like you to make a special note of this: when I am incorrect I admit it - like a man - period. When you are shown to be incorrect you ignore it and pretend that it's just 'semantics'. Worse yet - when your buddy LWW gets creamed like he did in that ridiculous forest thinning thread - instead of standing tall and admitting that he couldn't back up his BS with facts? He ran for cover and pretended that he'd won. Gimme a break here Bama - you guys can't have it both ways - either post with integrity and admit when you've screwed up or be known for being shifty and without credibility. So far, I'm still waiting to see if any of you AZB boys have the balls to stand up and take your medicine when you're shown to be wrong.

Having said this why are you still insisting that you did not try to misdirect the thread or that you have yet to bother answering my original question?</font color>

http://i15.tinypic.com/6wyfpuc.jpg

<font color="blue">This WAS the question that was asked - not the one you pretended was asked. Don't play bull$hit games with me here. You know the difference. You have yet to answer the question - here for the sake of clarity I will ask it directly of you: Was that graph remotely accurate? Does it truly reflect the amount of money the government is spending on alternative energy research compared to the money being spent on the War in Iraq? Yes, or no, Bambi? </font color>

Finally, are you so desperate to win one of your little semantic arguments, and appear oh so clever, that you will go into these paroxysms of sarcasm to avoid real discussion? Because that's what it looks like to me.
And I'll bet I'm not alone.

Someone asked the question, what's wrong with this board? Well I think the answer is Sonoma

<font color="blue">Yes, dear, most of us know what you and your AZB pals think about this forum and 'what's wrong with it'. You all made your opinions very clear well before I returned to confront you. </font color>

Now do you want to discuss your original point of ,the supposed, misallocated funds, or do your want to continue with you junior high school "gotcha" antics?
Because your schtick is getting kinda old.

<font color="blue">Did I say they were mis-allocated funds? You sure are reading a lot into a question that you haven't bothered to answer.</font color>

The reason I asked my original question was for clarification. The govt's responsibility is to defend the citizens, not spend tax money on research projects better left to private industry.

<font color="blue">Now you are expressing an opinion. That's fine , you are welcome to your opinion. You have yet to answer the question - does this graph accurately represent the government monies allocated for the current war in Iraq versus the monies being spent on research and development of alternative sources of energy? </font color>

Do you want to discuss this?

<font color="blue">Discuss what? Your opinion of President Bush? Your opinion of the War in Iraq? Your opinion of the government's role in decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels? Before we proceed you're going to have to shake of the BS long enough to address the original question. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

bamadog
11-24-2007, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>

The Q, " Does the graph show what the "Bush Administration" spends on energy research, or all US energy research?" is a reasonaable one. He is asking for clarification, nothing wrong with that.

Q............ /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you Q,
Yes the question was reasonable, as you noted.
But Sonoma had no answer for it. His post was just a clumsy attempt to bash Bush by conflating two unrelated pieces of data. It had all the intellectual honesty of a Rosie O'Donnel rant. <hr /></blockquote>

You seem to be the one up on your political soapbox, talking about "misallocated" funds. Don't try to deny that this was an attempt to bash the Bush administration, it is obvious.



And speaking of problems with reading comprehension, Qtec stated that MY question was reasonable, not yours. And I acknowledged that.

<font color="blue">Good point - he was referring to your question as 'reasonable'. I was incorrect in suggesting that he was referring to my OP. Now, I'd like you to make a special note of this: when I am incorrect I admit it - like a man - period. When you are shown to be incorrect you ignore it and pretend that it's just 'semantics'. Worse yet - when your buddy LWW gets creamed like he did in that ridiculous forest thinning thread - instead of standing tall and admitting that he couldn't back up his BS with facts? He ran for cover and pretended that he'd won. Gimme a break here Bama - you guys can't have it both ways - either post with integrity and admit when you've screwed up or be known for being shifty and without credibility. So far, I'm still waiting to see if any of you AZB boys have the balls to stand up and take your medicine when you're shown to be wrong.

Having said this why are you still insisting that you did not try to misdirect the thread or that you have yet to bother answering my original question?</font color>

http://i15.tinypic.com/6wyfpuc.jpg

<font color="blue">This WAS the question that was asked - not the one you pretended was asked. Don't play bull$hit games with me here. You know the difference. You have yet to answer the question - here for the sake of clarity I will ask it directly of you: Was that graph remotely accurate? Does it truly reflect the amount of money the government is spending on alternative energy research compared to the money being spent on the War in Iraq? Yes, or no, Bambi? </font color>

Finally, are you so desperate to win one of your little semantic arguments, and appear oh so clever, that you will go into these paroxysms of sarcasm to avoid real discussion? Because that's what it looks like to me.
And I'll bet I'm not alone.

Someone asked the question, what's wrong with this board? Well I think the answer is Sonoma

<font color="blue">Yes, dear, most of us know what you and your AZB pals think about this forum and 'what's wrong with it'. You all made your opinions very clear well before I returned to confront you. </font color>

Now do you want to discuss your original point of ,the supposed, misallocated funds, or do your want to continue with you junior high school "gotcha" antics?
Because your schtick is getting kinda old.

<font color="blue">Did I say they were mis-allocated funds? You sure are reading a lot into a question that you haven't bothered to answer.</font color>

The reason I asked my original question was for clarification. The govt's responsibility is to defend the citizens, not spend tax money on research projects better left to private industry.

<font color="blue">Now you are expressing an opinion. That's fine , you are welcome to your opinion. You have yet to answer the question - does this graph accurately represent the government monies allocated for the current war in Iraq versus the monies being spent on research and development of alternative sources of energy? </font color>

Do you want to discuss this?

<font color="blue">Discuss what? Your opinion of President Bush? Your opinion of the War in Iraq? Your opinion of the government's role in decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels? Before we proceed you're going to have to shake of the BS long enough to address the original question. </font color> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

So you still don't acknowledge that you described the resources, which in this case are funds, as being misallocated?
Well here is a quote from your original question: "But a number doesn't really get across the sheer magnitude of these mis-allocated resources. This bar graph does a better job. (Be prepared to scroll down. A LOT.)

I have no idea whether your figures are correct. Let's assume they are. And you are talking about Bush administration spending on energy research. I have given my opinion on this.

But, YOU are stating an opinion that the resources are "misallocated".

So, I'm asking what would be the right allocation?

Qtec
11-24-2007, 06:09 PM
I said your Q was reasonable, thats all. It sounded as if you were asking for clarification.
Thats was it really.

Q

S0Noma
11-24-2007, 09:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>
So you still don't acknowledge that you described the resources, which in this case are funds, as being misallocated?
Well here is a quote from your original question: "But a number doesn't really get across the sheer magnitude of these mis-allocated resources. This bar graph does a better job. (Be prepared to scroll down. A LOT.)

I have no idea whether your figures are correct. Let's assume they are. And you are talking about Bush administration spending on energy research. I have given my opinion on this.

But, YOU are stating an opinion that the resources are "misallocated".

So, I'm asking what would be the right allocation?

<hr /></blockquote>

Ummm... not exactly. You are referring (once again) to the text I quoted from the website that had the graph. While ignoring, once again, the question that I actually asked.

The question I actually asked was in the title of the Original Post - not in the quote box. The text and questions in the quote box were taken directly from the web site with the graph. As was duly noted in the link provided and my use of the quote function to designate that it wasn't me talking.

Here, once again, for the textually challenged is the question - circled in red.

http://i9.tinypic.com/6x9z9t1.jpg

Pretty please, Bamadog, won't you stop ignoring the question I asked ("Is this graph remotely accurate?") and answer it this time?

bamadog
11-25-2007, 01:23 AM
Since you said please, I'll answer it again.
I have no idea if your figures are correct.

Why do you ask?

Do you have a point to make?
Stop hiding behind your cleverness and tiresome sarcasm and make your point.

Eight of the threads you've started, on this page alone, have no replies.
Does that tell you anything?

S0Noma
11-25-2007, 09:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Since you said please, I'll answer it again.
I have no idea if your figures are correct.
<hr /></blockquote>

ROTFLMAO! Six posts from you in this thread and when you realize that you absolutely, positively are going to have to address my one and only question - you FINALLY answer (and no, not "again" you lying creep$hit, but for the VERY FIRST TIME!!!).

What is that hard wrought answer?

Why your answer is that you have no idea if the graph is 'remotely accurate'!! But you no doubt want to talk about this thing which you have no idea about?

Good luck with that.

Holy cow, Bamalamadingdong, getting you to give an honest answer to a simple question is like pulling fricking teeth. Whew...!!

We're done here BamaDumb. Thanks for playing.


Hope this helps.


Sonoma

moblsv
11-25-2007, 09:40 AM
Bamadog - "Eight of the threads you've started, on this page alone, have no replies.
Does that tell you anything? "

I enjoy your posts. I rarely notice he posts anymore, let alone reply. Does that tell him anything?

wolfdancer
11-25-2007, 12:01 PM
The graph wasn't meant to be controversial..as he was "just asking"
AND since no one here really knows the answer ('cept Bama and LWW /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif) any reply would have been a guess.
There are lots of posts I read here, that are interesting, but demand no reply....
These three believe you have to begin an argument or prove how smart you think you iz, with each post....
Well, at least I read Sonoma's posts...can't say the same about Bama &amp; Co.

bamadog
11-25-2007, 12:38 PM
Once again you have shown that you are scared and unwilling to debate the substance of an issue.

You are truly a waste of time and bandwidth.

S0Noma
11-25-2007, 03:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Once again you have shown that you are scared and unwilling to debate the substance of an issue.

You are truly a waste of time and bandwidth. <hr /></blockquote>

&amp; once again you have shown that you will fight tooth and nail for the right to ignore a direct question while all the while pretending with all your might that YOU KNOW WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS!

Hmmm... what is it about that position that reminds me of your buddy, LWW? Oh, yeah, I remember now! It was his insistence that environmental lawsuits directly prevented the thinning of the forests around Lake Tahoe and hence environmentalists were directly responsible for the fire itself. This, even though he couldn't produce an iota of evidence that there were any lawsuits preventing forest thinning around Lake Tahoe - in fact one of his own links pointed to the fact that the opposite was true - no environmental lawsuits in the ten years preceding the Tahoe Fire. He, like you, prefers fiction to fact and when the fiction is exposed for what it is? He lies or ducks and runs for cover to avoid having to admit that he's wrong.

As with you in this thread, I repeatedly asked him point blank to answer that one single unanswered question and he like you pretended not to hear it.

You two should be ashamed of yourselves for your apparent inability to conduct an honest discussion. It's obvious now to anyone with the capacity for critical thinking that you're both cowards unworthy of any respect.

Bama - when I erred in one of my responses to you I immediately admitted it - because I AM a man who will stand up and take his medicine when he is proven wrong. What kind of man are you? You needn't answer - you continually dodged answering my one and only direct question - the one circled in red and shown to you time and again - the one that started this thread.

You did so while pretending that I had in fact asked something else. Even though I backed you into a corner so that you had no choice but to finally, in front of God and everyone - ANSWER the damned question - you still skated away ignoring any responsibility you had for having misdirected the thread in the first place. My guess is that it was because you either misread my original post or you preferred not to answer my question or because you feared that you couldn't handle the implications of that answer.

Frankly, you come away looking pretty crappy here, bud. Not that I'm surprised. I just thought that behind your bluster there might be a man willing to take responsibility for his actions and own up to it.

Obviously, I was wrong.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma

moblsv
11-25-2007, 04:28 PM
http://www.ncseonline.org/Affiliates/Handbook/cms.cfm?id=904

bamadog
11-25-2007, 10:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Once again you have shown that you are scared and unwilling to debate the substance of an issue.

You are truly a waste of time and bandwidth. <hr /></blockquote>



&amp; once again you have shown that you will fight tooth and nail for the right to ignore a direct question while all the while pretending with all your might that YOU KNOW WHAT THE REAL ISSUE IS!




You two should be ashamed of yourselves for your apparent inability to conduct an honest discussion. It's obvious now to anyone with the capacity for critical thinking that you're both cowards unworthy of any respect.

Bama - when I erred in one of my responses to you I immediately admitted it - because I AM a man who will stand up and take his medicine when he is proven wrong. What kind of man are you? You needn't answer - you continually dodged answering my one and only direct question - the one circled in red and shown to you time and again - the one that started this thread.






Sonoma <hr /></blockquote>

Frankly, once again you came off looking like a coward here.

you repeatedly ran from my question of what was your point in posting your inane graph.
And your constant juvenile insults only reinforces that impression.

I answered your ridiculous question twice in a effort to get you to discuss the content of your post, but, once again you are way more interested in being clever and evasive and above all, childish.

Hope this will help in your slow crawl to adulthood.

bamadog
11-25-2007, 10:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Once again you have shown that you are scared and unwilling to debate the substance of an issue.

You are truly a waste of time and bandwidth. <hr /></blockquote>







You two should be ashamed of yourselves for your apparent inability to conduct an honest discussion. It's obvious now to anyone with the capacity for critical thinking that you're both cowards unworthy of any respect.








Sonoma <hr /></blockquote>


btw, If you have an issue with LWW, stop being a titty baby and take it up directly with him.
I'm tired of your whining.

LWW
11-26-2007, 04:35 AM
He's still basking in the manufactured glory of his narrow win over a strawman of me.

How's the nightlight called Malibu doing?

LWW

moblsv
11-26-2007, 07:18 AM
Thanks you for calling them on the environmentalist lawsuit issue. I don't read their posts so I never saw it :-)

This is another one of those fake stories to support an Orwellian named Bush policy, propagated through their Ministries of Truth (Malkin, Savage, etal) They are trying to show that the "Healthy Forests Initiative", for cutting old grow trees, would have helped the fire situation, when, in reality, the exact opposite is true. And, of course, at the same time take another shot at one of their favorite internal enemies, those damn liberal hippies.

I can just see these people sitting around laughing at how stupid their followers are, and slapping each other on the back for how well they manipulate them, every time they put out such obvious b.s. and it spreads across the Internet.

bamadog
11-26-2007, 11:11 AM
Malibu is one of the prettiest and most tranquil places in SoCal. But man do they take it in the head during fire season.

S0Noma
11-26-2007, 06:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Thanks you for calling them on the environmentalist lawsuit issue. I don't read their posts so I never saw it :-)

This is another one of those fake stories to support an Orwellian named Bush policy, propagated through their Ministries of Truth (Malkin, Savage, etal) They are trying to show that the "Healthy Forests Initiative", for cutting old grow trees, would have helped the fire situation, when, in reality, the exact opposite is true. And, of course, at the same time take another shot at one of their favorite internal enemies, those damn liberal hippies.

I can just see these people sitting around laughing at how stupid their followers are, and slapping each other on the back for how well they manipulate them, every time they put out such obvious b.s. and it spreads across the Internet. <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with most of what you say - it is Orwellian - truth is fiction - war is peace -

What I found most ironic about LWW's absurd position is that he never acknowledged what the thinning agenda was actually all about - timber interests getting their grubby hands on National forests and cutting down old growth trees for fun and profit.

Much like the fundamentalists who tried to use their positions on the Dover school board to ramrod Creationism into the science classroom disguised as 'science' (intelligent design) - the new approach to getting what 'they' want apparently calls for them to first pretend that they are working in the best interest of the very thing they want to tear apart.

In the case of the Dover School Board it was about overturning the teaching of evolution - in the case of 'forest thinning' it's about legally gaining access to timber that has enormous short-term commercial value. Their goal is to overturn protections set in place to guarantee that this 'wilderness is set aside for future generations to enjoy'. As should be obvious, untouched wilderness is an asset with very long term immeasurable value that offers no immediate means to line the pockets of those who would rape it while claiming to be 'saving' it.

The whole thing is really very funny in a dark, sinister, unfunny kind of way.

S0Noma
11-26-2007, 08:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> He's still basking in the manufactured glory of his narrow win over a strawman of me.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Do you have any idea what a 'straw man' argument actually is?

FWI: [ QUOTE ]
Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. <hr /></blockquote></font color>
web page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

<font color="blue">Okay, I'll bite

In the thread (a magnaminous offer (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=263146&amp;page=&amp;vi ew=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1)) where you imply I won a 'straw man argument':

- please describe your 'Position X' in one or two paragraphs.

- follow with a one or two paragraph description of my 'Position Y' where I 'simply ignored' your Position X.

If you can do it? It should be clear to one and all what your original argument was and that I created a 'Position Y' 'straw man argument' because I could not defeat your 'Position X'.

Furthermore, if you can make your point it will show that I have since been claiming a false victory at your expense.

Give it your best shot!

FYI: My claim in rebutting your last post in this thread is that you commonly misuse the term 'strawman' in an effort to discredit your opponents and disguise the fact that you have actually lost the argument to which you refer.

In short - your misuse of the term 'straw man' is, in point of fact, a convoluted effort to create a self-serving straw man argument on your own behalf.

Oh irony, thy name is LWW!!</font color>

<font color="red"> “You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?” </font color>



https://secure.reservexl.net/wwwimg/img/tours/8821-3.jpg

S0Noma
11-26-2007, 08:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>

I answered your ridiculous question twice in a effort to get you to discuss the content of your post, but, once again you are way more interested in being clever and evasive and above all, childish.

Hope this will help in your slow crawl to adulthood. <hr /></blockquote>

Okay, let's keep this simple - as I've pointed out repeatedly, I only asked ONE QUESTION

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>

http://i9.tinypic.com/6x9z9t1.jpg

FYI: I've circled it in red above and blocked out all the other text (text from the website I linked to) and you FINALLY answered it!

Now, you want to claim that you answered it twice.

Cool - given that every single post pertinent to my request is still on the first page of this thread - the next easy step to confirm your claim is for you to quote the two posts of yours that show you directly answering my one and only question

"<font color="red">Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color> .

Do it! Make a fool of me! I dare you to. Tell ya what, I'll even go a step further and make you a proposition. If you can cite those two posts in which you claim to have answered my question:

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>

- I will stop posting in the NPR.

On the other hand? If you can't cite those two answers you're laying claim to? You pack your bags and head back to AZB and quit contaminating this forum with the sewage you call thinking?

Deal?

Mind you - your two answers must be direct answers to my direct question:

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>

What you don't get here, Bambi, is that I am not playing games with you. I am keeping you honest. I just finished rebuking your AZB buttbuddy for his misuse of the 'straw man fallacy'. FYI: When you ignored my actual question and launched into answering a question that I had not asked - you did so because it served your need for a 'straw man'.

I have since been trying with very limited success to redirect you to my one and only question and hence my one and only position ('argument'). You on the other hand have steadfastly insisted on mounting an argument with comments made by the creator of the website where the chart in question resides.

STRAW MAN - get it? By arguing with the web site's author you created an argument that I didn't intend.

If you cannot show your proof here that you actually addressed my original and one and only question twice, you will be shown for the slimy little prevaricator that most of us already know you to be and you will leave this forum with your tiny bamatail between your spindly bamalegs.

Sounds like a plan to me.

It's your claim against mine Bamadog. I say you answered ONCE - you say you answered TWICE.

Prove it.

Sonoma

bamadog
11-26-2007, 09:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>

I answered your ridiculous question twice in a effort to get you to discuss the content of your post, but, once again you are way more interested in being clever and evasive and above all, childish.

<hr /></blockquote>

Okay, let's keep this simple - as I've pointed out repeatedly, I only asked ONE QUESTION

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>




"

Do it! Make a fool of me! I dare you to. Tell ya what, I'll even go a step further and make you a proposition. If you can cite those two posts in which you claim to have answered my question:

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>

- I will stop posting in the NPR.

On the other hand? If you can't cite those two answers you're laying claim to? You pack your bags and head back to AZB and quit contaminating this forum with the sewage you call thinking?

Deal?

Mind you - your two answers must be direct answers to my direct question:

<font color="red">"Is this graph remotely accurate?" </font color>






It's your claim against mine Bamadog. I say you answered ONCE - you say you answered TWICE.

Prove it.

Sonoma <hr /></blockquote>


OK, shallow one, let's keep this real simple.

Here are my two answers to your inane question.

1. My post from 11/24 at 6:59 PM
“I have no idea whether your figures are correct. Let’s assume they are. And you are talking about Bush administration spending on energy research. I have given my opinion on this.”


2. My post from 11/25 at 02:23 AM
“Since you said please, I’ll answer it again.
I have no idea if your figures are correct.

Why do you ask?

Do you have a point to make?
Stop hiding behind your cleverness and tiresome sarcasm and make your point.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I know you are a person of low character as you have repeatedly shown by your juvenile personal attacks, so I fully expect you to try to twist my words and my intent in stating twice that I have no idea if your figures (the graph) is accurate. So have at it.

Also, I want to state so anyone who may be interested will have no doubt, that I consider you to be one of the lowest cowards I have encountered.
You sling your personal insults while hiding behind the safety of your pseudonym as a coward does. Where you got the idea that this is OK, I can only guess that you are the product of an extremely dysfunctional household. Perhaps there was no father in attendance to show you how men behave. That is a shame, because you have obviously not fully developed. But it is not my problem.
I will guarantee you one thing however, if we ever meet face to face, you will not get that second insult out of your mouth.
If you have a problem with my observation, don't hesitate to PM me.

S0Noma
11-26-2007, 10:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr>

OK, shallow one, let's keep this real simple.

Here are my two answers to your inane question.

1. My post from 11/24 at 6:59 PM
“I have no idea whether your figures are correct. Let’s assume they are. And you are talking about Bush administration spending on energy research. I have given my opinion on this.”

<font color="red">No sir, that was not 'your post'. Your actual response from 11/24 at 6:59 PM (including the part you chopped off):

http://i12.tinypic.com/6q3heub.jpg

Funny, but you conspicuously left this very important part out - typical of your deceitful ways - it's also the part that belies your claim above: [/b] </font color>

"So you still don't acknowledge that you described the resources, which in this case are funds, as being misallocated? Well here is a quote from your original question: "But a number doesn't really get across the sheer magnitude of these mis-allocated resources. This bar graph does a better job. (Be prepared to scroll down. A LOT.)"

<font color="red">Cut that paragraph off and you can make it LOOK like you were answering my original question - but it's obvious that you weren't - because it wasn't my original question that you were referring to. You were quoting text from the web site and implying that it was, in fact, my original question.

</font color>
2. My post from 11/25 at 02:23 AM
“Since you said please, I’ll answer it again.
I have no idea if your figures are correct.

Why do you ask?

Do you have a point to make?
Stop hiding behind your cleverness and tiresome sarcasm and make your point.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I know you are a person of low character as you have repeatedly shown by your juvenile personal attacks, so I fully expect you to try to twist my words and my intent in stating twice that I have no idea if your figures (the graph) is accurate. So have at it.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Frankly, I couldn't have done a more thorough job of twisting your original words and their intent than you have just unsuccessfully attempted here.

You've just hung yourself and you've done it with your own words -

A man who lies and will not admit it when confronted with the truth is not a man in my book.

Case closed.

bamadog
11-26-2007, 10:38 PM
You are truly sad.
As I stated, I fully expected you to try to twist the intention of my post because you are shallow and empty and desperate for somebody, ANYBODY to see you as clever.

Well, the only figures contained in your post are in the graph. So when I said (in answer#1) I had no Idea whether the figures are correct, I was, and could only be, referring to the graph.
Because that is the ONLY place in your post that contains figures.

You asked, "Is this graph remotely accurate?"
I answered twice that I don't know.

I did go on, in post #1, to try to get you to engage on the substance of your post, which you avoided. But that was after I had answered your question.

Now go ahead once again and try to twist this into something you want to see.

Btw. which one of my posts do you accept as answering your question?

Because they are identical.

What is ludicrous in this whole enterprise that you have constructed is; You are desperate to show that I answered your question only once. And you are willing to spend time and energy on this. But you NEVER answered ANY of my questions about the content of what you posted, preferring instead to play games. You are terrified to engage on an issue that will demonstrate your lack of depth.
I can only conclude that you have nothing of substance to contribute.

And this little challenge is merely an attempt to make amends for your little reading comprehension boo boo.

LWW
11-27-2007, 05:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> What I found most ironic about LWW's absurd position is that he never acknowledged what the thinning agenda was actually all about - timber interests getting their grubby hands on National forests and cutting down old growth trees for fun and profit. <hr /></blockquote>
Actually the entire point was that every time the econuts get in the way of proper forest husbandry this is the result.

You proposed ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion (AKA strawman.) and did nothing to demonstrate that the fires would not have happened nor have been as intense had the forests been properly cleared.

As I stated, either humans do it in a sane organized manner or nature does it as it is doing now.

LWW

S0Noma
11-27-2007, 10:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>
Actually the entire point was that every time the econuts get in the way of proper forest husbandry this is the result.

You proposed ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion (AKA strawman.) and did nothing to demonstrate that the fires would not have happened nor have been as intense had the forests been properly cleared.

As I stated, either humans do it in a sane organized manner or nature does it as it is doing now.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Well, that's a very broad generalization that you were unable to support during our discussion. In order for your argument to have any merit you would have to prove that forest thinning efforts (as defined by George Bush?) prevent forest fires. Furthermore, you would have to prove that so-called 'econuts' have 'gotten in the way' of ALL Federal forest thinning efforts. If you could have proven that this was the case? Your argument would have held merit.

But you couldn't and you didn't. What you did instead was make broad brush statements implying that the two major fires that we experienced here in California this year were both due to 'econuts' '(having gotten)in the way' of thinning projects.

When pressed, you failed to show proof of enviro lawsuits inhibiting thinning in Lake Tahoe where the first major fire occurred. You also failed to show proof that enviro lawsuits inhibiting thinning efforts had anything to do with the thousands of square miles of brush that burned in the SoCal fires.

You made unsupported statements like this one:

http://i3.tinypic.com/8byhiyf.jpg

Implying that "...the US Forestry Dept is uniform on it's forest husbandry processes." When in point of fact, it isn't. A little research indicated that fully 76% of all Federal forest thinning efforts have proceeded without any obstruction from enviro lawsuits whatsoever.

So, not only will I not accept your revisionist explanation of your original argument. But I will hasten to point out that there is really only one explanation for your eagerness to falsely blame environmental lawsuits for ALL fires -

You have a political agenda. Screaming bloody murder every time a forest fire of any significance breaks out - serves that agenda. You and your ultra-conservative cohorts are trying your damnedest to stampede the American public into supporting President Bush's efforts to block all thinning related environmental lawsuits and pave the way for the timber interests to begin cutting down old growth trees in protected wilderness areas - without restrictions.

Sorry, LWW - your so-called 'position X' argument was shown for what it is: a classic false straw man 'position Y'.

Hope this helps.

Sonoma

hondo
11-27-2007, 11:25 AM
The only possible solution to this feud is a duel.
I suggest super soakers at 30 feet. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
11-27-2007, 04:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You proposed ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion (AKA strawman.) and did nothing to demonstrate that the fires would not have happened... <hr /></blockquote> Cleaning up a forest does not stop an arsonist.

eg8r

S0Noma
11-27-2007, 05:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
You proposed ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion (AKA strawman.) and did nothing to demonstrate that the fires would not have happened... <hr /></blockquote> Cleaning up a forest does not stop an arsonist.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Good point Eg8r - and while we're on the subject - unless you've gone in and cut ALL the trees down and cleared out ALL the brush - thinning isn't going to help much when there are sustained winds up to 85mph driving the fires as was the case in SoCal this past October.

Those brush and forest fires were WIND BLOWN in a big way.

High winds combined with the driest year in a century of record keeping and you've got the fixin's for a natural blow torch. Thinning isn't going to stop a blow torch.

LWW
11-28-2007, 05:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
You proposed ridiculous assertion after ridiculous assertion (AKA strawman.) and did nothing to demonstrate that the fires would not have happened... <hr /></blockquote> Cleaning up a forest does not stop an arsonist.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Good point Eg8r - and while we're on the subject - unless you've gone in and cut ALL the trees down and cleared out ALL the brush - thinning isn't going to help much when there are sustained winds up to 85mph driving the fires as was the case in SoCal this past October.

Those brush and forest fires were WIND BLOWN in a big way.

High winds combined with the driest year in a century of record keeping and you've got the fixin's for a natural blow torch. Thinning isn't going to stop a blow torch. <hr /></blockquote>
But it sure stops it from spreading.

The insanity of the econut argument is that unless the econuts tried to block 100% of the efforts then they did nothing? If the Bush policy allowed 1 single fire to start then Bush was wrong?

The FACT is I documented where the Bush policy was the same as the Clinton, Gore, Feinstein position.

There is nothing new here and the neoleftists still in junior high will still do a victory dance to celebrate how they beat the strawman.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

LWW

LWW
11-28-2007, 05:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Thanks you for calling them on the environmentalist lawsuit issue. I don't read their posts so I never saw it :-)<hr /></blockquote>
Let me translate that for everyone.

You refuse to read anything which doesn't match your preconceived ideas and celebrate those that prove you right by ignoring the same data?

WOW!

How much does being a droid pay these days?

LWW

eg8r
11-28-2007, 08:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But it sure stops it from spreading.
<hr /></blockquote> Don't start changing your own defense now when you see your error. You believed the fires would not have happened if the cleaning of the forests had taken place. I am telling you that you are wrong simply because an arsonist does not care how much spring cleaning you have done.

As far as spreading, bull crap. It does not matter how much cleaning you do, when 80 mph winds are blowing through nothing will stop the fire from spreading. You are in a no win situation, too bad you let it get this far.

eg8r

wolfdancer
11-28-2007, 10:59 AM
Let me translate that for everyone.

You refuse to read anything which doesn't match your preconceived ideas and celebrate those that prove you right by ignoring the same data?
<font color="blue"> let me translate for you...he doesn't read your pronouncements for the same reason I don't..your vain attempts to try to sound so **** superior, turns most people off...we don't need you, Mr. "Hi IQ' (sic) to explain world events to us.( that's that other egotistical a**hole O'Reilly's job) Maybe if you ever post in a conversational style,you might even get a positive response???....that wouldn't work though for you...because that would mean you value other people's opinions, and ideas </font color>
".....celebrate those that prove you right by ignoring the same data?"
<font color="blue"> maybe you could translate that for us, boy genius?????? </font color>

S0Noma
11-28-2007, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr>

The insanity of the econut argument is that unless the econuts tried to block 100% of the efforts then they did nothing? If the Bush policy allowed 1 single fire to start then Bush was wrong?

<font color="red">LWW - read my lips - IF your inane assertion that any and all major forest fires are due to environmental lawsuits preventing thinning can not be supported by hard facts? &amp; if those 'hard facts' show the opposite?

You, LWW, NOT BUSH, are WRONG! Big difference - </font color>


The FACT is I documented where the Bush policy was the same as the Clinton, Gore, Feinstein position.

<font color="red">Grab a dictionary and look up 'non sequitur'. Your 'documentation' fails to meet the criterion for relevancy. On top of which it has jack $hit to do with the first two lines you wrote in this post. </font color>

There is nothing new here and the neoleftists still in junior high will still do a victory dance to celebrate how they beat the strawman.

<font color="red">I'm beginning to think that you truly are made out of straw. Your thinking is confused to the point of dementia. For the first time I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

You really did ride the short bus to school when you were a kid, huh? Why didn't you just say so right from the start? I don't normally attempt discussions with someone I know to be retarded. You could have saved us both a whole lot of time and effort if you'd only been honest about your handicap. But inability to behave honestly IS your handicap isn't it? I get it.</font color>

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

LWW, are you trying to win a prize for stupidity? For what it's worth your nearest competitors are MILES behind you - you are a shoo in.

FWIW: The only 'insanity' I've seen so far in this thread is your absurd notion that ALL forest fires, no matter where they occur and no matter if there were ANY ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS involved, can be laid at the doorstep of the 'econuts'.

That's the crux of the pompous oversimplified, unsupportable statements you made in the first place. It's why we got into that thread and how - pages later and with the rest of the forum members sitting by - bored to tears - eyes glazed over - we have arrived here.

You with egg all over your face - still spluttering and blustering and denying and trying to divert attention from your baseless rhetoric and asinine assertions.

Wouldn't it be wonderful, LWW, if all of us were as simple minded as you? Then we could happily swallow the swill you're trying to feed us (you and Limbaugh and Ann and Hannity) about the terrible 'econuts' and how we need to 'save the forests from them' by denying them the right to sue.

In your dreams -