Pangloss

I don't believe it was.

I totally agree with this, with the one stipulation that I don't think it's a very "deep" thought. It's a very superficial thing. That doesn't make it right, of course, or less dangerous to society. Most Americans treat the issue as part of that pool of opinions that one keeps hovering around near the surface of the mind for use in polls, first dates, job interviews, and "meeting the parents".

55% of Americans would answer "yes" to a poll just to get the pollster to stop asking them annoying questions. But seriously, I think that's one of those off-the-cuff reaction answers that doesn't necessarily reflect what people think when seriously considering the various implications of their beliefs. And it's also worth noting that the margin of error in that poll was 3%. Almost as great as the difference between majority and minority. Out of 885 people that's a 27-person margin of error. That's way too close to use in support of a sweeping statement like "most Americans believe in creationism", especially since the implications of that statement are far greater than the seriousness most people were probably giving to that poll. We're talking about a telephone poll, for pete's sake. Statistically speaking you know how the overwhelming majority of people called answered that poll, right? <<CLICK>>

mike90, are you suggesting that society should be governed by emotions, erroneous perceptions, and instinctive reactions? Isn't that kinda crazy?

This is the "thread of the week".

Who said I didn't like it? (grin)

Absolutely. What would be the point in coming here otherwise? IMO anybody who gets on a message board who isn't interested in what other people have to say should really question their reasons for logging in. Save everyone the effort and just send yourself an email.

I don't believe that's incorrect. What's been studied it long-term exposure to second-hand smoke. Short-term exposure has not been studied in depth.

Seems to me like there's a lot of reasoning in this thread to the effect that "they don't do that, but they really do, but it doesn't mean anything that they do". Why jump through all the hoops? Clearly the media has predisposed to report one type of crime over another. Clearly there must be a reason for that. Why shy away from it?

I've thought along similar lines. There are national watchdog groups, like FAIR or MRC, but they tend to be completely partisan to their ideological funding sources. I guess they figure that they're still performing an objective service by offsetting the other partisan sites. Too bad real objectivity doesn't work like that. But yeah I've thought about doing that from time to time, particularly at the local level. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is just getting the word out on a local level. It's not the sort of thing people run searches for, so you have to use a more old-fashioned kind of ad model, putting banners and ads in people's faces and drawing them in. ($$$) BTW, it's been my experience that local reporters are much more receptive and responsive to criticism than national ones. I've emailed local reporters about their stories many times, and I've found that as long as I maintain a pleasant and professional demeasnor I usually get some kind of polite response. My guess is that local reporters actually don't get a whole lot of email feedback. But I could be wrong on that, because I've noticed over the last year or so that all the local stations have taken their email addresses out of the banners that show under the reporter's name on the screen, and you can only email them through the web site using a form (so you can't see their address). There is at least one web site that monitors local media happenings in South Florida, and I follow that one. I actually posted a bit of feedback on one last week that got tracked back to the newsroom at the local station. The story was a little item that ran in Tampa last week about a woman who was going to the hospital to visit her father when she was pulled over by police. The woman ignored instructions and drove off after the cop didn't believe her, and the camera footage showed the cop throwing her down on the hood for handcuffing. The local reporter was basically doing a voice-over and he emotionally embellished on the story, calling it "incredible". But he neglected to mention important facts in the case, such as the fact that she was driving 65 in a 35mph hospital zone. I posted in a thread that was discussing newsroom problems at that station, and I got an angry anonymous reply from someone in the newsroom at that station. At the same time I had also emailed the reporter and in both cases I was really polite about it, and the reporter himself sent me a nice email in reply (somewhat in agreement with my criticism). So I figured the angry reply on the public board was from someone else. Anyway a boatload of people posted in agreement with me and in anger at the newsroom, and they didn't say squat after that, for reasons that are probably obvious. But I think that sort of thing is really in its infancy. It's just too hard to start web sites with local focus, and national ones have too much baggage to haul around. National is probably the way to go, with breakouts for local boards. But there's always going to be trouble finding the audience. No question someone should be watching the watchers, though.

Haezed, I don't want to step into Sayo's argument, but just to bookend our own conversation, I respect where you're coming from, I guess I just have a different outlook on it. I do think you have a foot in the door, in a sense, regarding the point about long-term affect studies giving sufficient cause for banning, I just don't agree with the banning. I would say further studies first. But (having thought about it and listened to your POV some more) I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view at all. My main objection is that you kinda touched on my anti-demagoguery nerve. I really get concerned when I hear people talking about banning things without due diligence. I realize that's not exactly what you're doing (you want to ban things that people find annoying), but you and I aren't typical people, and those are difficult subtleties to convey to the general (voting) public. Me, I want some hard evidence before I start banning things, rather than take a "if in doubt, ban and find out" approach.

Sorry if I just missed this, but NHS is short for "National Health Service", right? Just trying to follow the convo.

The funny thing is, people used to HATE the "click". It was loathed almost universally back in the old IBM PS2 days. That's why it's so uncommon today.

What idea is that?

For a minute I thought I'd stumbled into http://www.scienceforumsandpr0n.net.

Yup, I think this is a common problem in CS programs around the country. At the graduate school where I got my Masters degree, they have twice as many students in the "CIS" program as they do in the "CS" program, and twice as many again in MIS and CTE (computer technology in education).

Carbon monoxide kills in sufficient quantity. Do not drive your car past my house anymore. You don't know that it won't harm me.

This is very wrong reasoning, IMO. You can't just pick a subject and decide that its adherents need to prove themselves non-threatening to you. You look funny. Prove you're not dangerous to me. You have a strange name. Prove you're not dangerous to me. Your farts smell awful. Prove they're not dangerous to me. I think you know better than that. I have no problem with your objections to noxious odor and discourteous behavior, by the way. By all means, object on that basis. I support your right to take your business elsewhere, 100%.

One or two opinions one way, one or two opinions another. Sounds like a toss-up to me. (shrug) So we're back to square one, which in this society means you can continue with your activity until someone proves it is dangerous.

It was really more of a joke. I think Israel benefits from stablity in the Middle East more than turmoil. Yes, I think Turkey is always an interesting question.

Did you read the OP, Phil? If so, what was your objection to the information contained therein?

It isn't an argument. It's additional detail about the problem.

It hasn't been proven that short term exposure causes no harm. What matters is that it hasn't been proven that short term exposure causes harm. Understanding the full implications of the two above sentences (and how they apply to all subjects) is something that the scientific community seems to be lacking at these days. We latch onto politically correct assumptions (requiring opponents to prove a negative!) while objecting to politically incorrect assumptions on a scientific basis. A tremendous hypocrisy, IMO.

Same here. I'm surprised at the level of discussion. I'm also quite happy to see it. We had a thread not that long ago where this subject was discussed, and it seemed to me at the time that that discussion was dominated by two ardent enemies-at-all-costs to tobacco, and they produced a thread in which the tone was much more along the lines of forbidden all forms of smoking in any and all locations. I was very disappointed by that thread at the time, and this thread is a direct result of my determination to review that earlier discussion and find out what the true feeling of the membership was on this issue, which turns out to be far more complex and balanced than that earlier discussion suggested. From where I sit this thread is a resounding success, and yet another thorn in the side of closed-minded, issue-driven demagoguery.

I'm not sure what you mean. George Stephanopoulos worked for President Clinton and can hardly be seen as a partisan for Republicans. Anyway, in saying that you "don't give much credit to the question", you seem to be suggesting that we should just ignore a very obvious potential development in Iraq after we depart, just so we can "bring the troops home". How's that approach working out for Darfur?