Pangloss

Well for what it's worth I disagree, but it's a compromise I've been willing to make for some time now. I have rather mixed feelings about it, and it's certainly not that easily separated from socialism, and I also don't believe the vast majority of the hype about "millions without healthcare", but what I'm mostly focused on is what is the most efficient and cost-effective way to get the entire country on good medical care. If that's socialized medicine, then that's what it is. We need to make a decision on this and get it taken care of so we can get back to moving forward (low-cost care, readily accessible, latest technology) instead of backward (increasing costs, decreasing accessibility, technology coming from overseas).

But he can agree to disagree on matters of opinion, rather than spinning them all assunder. Like ignoring the word "peaceful" and focusing on the word "stable" -- it's either a consession or it's spin, and either way it's impolite. Why not just say "hey it may not be peaceful, you have a point there, but I think it's pretty stable"? Isn't that more in the spirit of congenial debate? I don't want to nit pick, but since you asked and since we're talking about the level of congeniality of the board in the other thread, I'll go ahead and answer. It's not my purpose to pick on phcatlantis here, but it does serve to illustrate the point I'm trying to make in that other thread.

Um, because he said that it did, right a the start of his message. (grin)

I'm in final exams this week so this is going to be very brief, but I want you guys to start thinking about something over the next few days and hopefully start talking about it before we go and start laying down the new rules. Many places on the Internet feature debate. Some of it is pretty good. Most of it is amateur hour. Some of it is downright lame. NONE of those communities, however, is exactly like "Science Forums and Debate". We're unique. And what makes us unique are you guys -- the members. I believe that the underlying premise of political discussion on SFN should be congenial debate of the issues that face our world today. Many of our members are scientists and engineers and other highly skilled professionals working all over the world, trying to make the world a better place. Our Politics board, I believe, should reflect that. Our discussions here should be congenial. Personal opinions should be challenged, but they should be respected -- at ALL times. This is not democraticunderground.com or michaelmoore.com or billoreilly.com. We have a higher standard for scientific and engineering discussion here -- why not a higher standard for debate as well? Your thoughts are welcome. I'd like to listen to what you guys have to say before we make any changes.

Yes, it's called several centuries of treaties and trade agreements, and a mutual decision to let old business like that stop being an issue. We have that with Mexico. Israel and Palestine lack it. Next question?

Wow, you're really dead set on spinning every possible thing your way. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone except those on the most lunatic fringes that Israel is not a stable country. K, I'm taking that as a consession on your part. There's a difference between a straw man and a valid example. Sharon was the hard-liners' hard-liner, and now he's becoming a moderate. It's valid, it's exemplary of the overall situation, and it fits the discussion. I'm disappointed in your tone and your animosity, phc. I was hoping for a more objective and less ideological discussion from you. I hope you're going to be happy here, because our discussions tend to be a little more congenial. It's been my experience that people who are more interested in talking than listening are not happy here over the long haul. But perhaps it will work out, and I respect your opinion on it, even if it's pretty clear you don't respect mine.

Say, does anybody know what happened with the deal the Bush administration was working on with Australia? I haven't heard anything about that in a while now, and I'm just wondering if it was ratified/passed/whatever.

Well, you have to start somewhere, and if you're going to start with events taking place after *now* then you might as well start with the current geopolitical situation. Go back far enough and you can make any case of prior ownership you like. Nobody knows who owned what first. It just gets a little silly. So I think my version is equally valid, and points out the inherent flaw in the comparison.

The more accurate way to phrase that would be to ask whether we would capture a couple of Mexican states in retaliation, and then give them back later in exchange for peace, only keep a couple of them because thousands of Americans had settled them during the interim.

Could be. I doubt it was sonic booms. You're mom's a smart woman. I often think that myself (not that I'm as smart, since obviously I end up opening my big mouth anyway ;->), but I guess it's okay to discuss and pay attention to a thing without diving into it in a partisan way. We can keep open minds, express our concerns, and make sure the people who live in that region understand that (a) they're being observed, (b) we support their efforts to end the violence, and © we want the end result to be fair.

A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small. The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible. The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah". The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "Then you ask him ".

We should just shut up and take our licks? Funny, nobody else seems to enjoy being told they're wrong all the time either. But Americans are supposed to just accept it. I don't get that, but hey, whatever floats yer boat.

Oh I see. I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you on that. Hopefully someone else can chime in here. I'd be a little surprised if it's true. I've read a number of Fareed Zakaria columns, and seen him many times on ABC's "This Week", and I don't think his position is that bad.

You did. Precisely where I entered the discussion' date=' in fact. In your words: "THAT's what he called [b']'two wrongs making a right'[/b], and his assessment was correct." I specifically entered the conversation to refute the characterization of this truism as an assessment. I guess you're right, I have "commented" on it, though I haven't rendered an opinion on its value. I was, as you put it, summing up his point. I don't have a problem with you correcting my use of the word "assessment", although it seems like a rather fine nit to pick. Oh I see. In that case the answer is "yes". (I.E. as a moderator I have no objection to you presenting that position; as a participant I'd probably ignore it.)

Which claims do you mean? Please be specific, thanks.

And yet, that hasn't worked out at all, has it? Israel's neighbors lack the capacity to send battalions of tanks about the region, but they seem to have no shortage of able-bodied volunteers ready to blow themselves up for the cause. You did a good job linking the details of the first intifada. I recommend reading up on the details of the second one. And low and behold, guess what kicked that one off. An ultra-conservative Israeli politician who thought the Palestinians would just roll over from a non-violent show of superiority. Kinda like... sonic-booming a civilian population. Imagine that. And that's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that perpetuates senseless violence in the region. The reason they should be making "land for peace deals" is that it's not their land. (Any chance we can skip a boiler-plate moral justification for the Israeli land grab and just go right to the usual denoument and just agree to disagree?) ;-)

First of all, I don't owe you anything. Polite people ask. They don't claim debt. Getting back to the point, my position (stated here) is that Israel is making a tactical error, not a moral wrong. I think they're making a huge error in judgement. Whether it is a morally valid course of action is not something that I've commented on. I might be interested in commenting on it, if you'd like to hear what I have to say. But I think you'll find me more willing to respond to a question rather than an assumption. Don't quote me back and try to spin my words to suit some angry agenda. Just... ask. I can't even begin to fathom what I've said that could suggest to you that I would take a position like that. And I don't understand your question at all.

For the record, I think this is a perfectly valid and even interesting position. Completely in contrast with the assaults from 5614 and phcatlantis. I disagree, but it's a position I can respect (and continue to discuss). I think that's why Israel has gotten into trouble, and it's a position we need to try as hard as we can NOT to duplicate (in the US). It's part of the whole "we become like them" argument. Sure, I understand the counter-point ("we might actually lose"), but Israel's been dealing with this for, what, 50+ years? And where has it gotten them? Has the violence stopped? Phc calls doG insane? No. I'll tell you what insanity is. Doing the same thing over and over again, something you KNOW isn't working, hoping for a different result. THAT's insanity.

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Mine differs. (And that's what happens when you close your mind and start spinning what other people are saying, instead of actually seeking information and alternative opinions.)

You haven't eliminated a hardware problem yet. It could be the connector or the motherboard. The way to determine whether the problem is in Windows would be to run something other than Windows. If you can find a bootable floppy somewhere, and find some program on it that will accept input from the control key, that would do the trick. I believe the old EDIT command had some control key commands built into it, so that might work. Just boot the Win98 boot floppy (if you still have it), abort the startup process (F8?) and let it go to the command line, then type "EDIT" and see if the control key works in there.

An actor, a daytime talk show host, and an activist all get together to discuss "one of the most important issues facing all of humanity."

Or did I get that backwards? That may be an anti-Kyoto group. So many groups, so little time. (lol) But if that's the case then the first link shows the normally objective Nyhan to be partisan and ideological on the issue, I suppose. I guess he has a point about it being a publicity stunt, though.

Yup. But sadly special interest groups continue to lament the end of Kyoto. http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_national_ce.html http://www.nationalcenter.org/PREmissionsCreditsTP1205.html The group linked above was at a UN conference on climate change on Montreal yesterday passing out these rolls of toilet paper printed with Kyoto emmisions credits on them, to make the point that they're not worth the paper they're printed on (unless it's toilet paper). Not because Kyoto was BAD in their view, mind you, but because Kyoto wasn't signed and completed.