The Bear's Key

Just to weigh in here, if the OP were seriously promoting the killing, that message would be quite absurd, its sentiment failing the test of logic and basic humanity as well. Many rich people are good, however that's besides the point. When you offer killing as a practical "solution", you not only begin to embark on a road shared by people who are the real problem, you're likely offering anti-solutions. What do you think the rich and powerful would do if threatened by such a move, just take it sitting down?* What about their families, loved ones, and the less fortunate who might've had strong ties or directly benefitted from a rich person's help. What of the universities that received private grants and nonprofits who received funding? You'd quickly create lots of non-rich enemies against society. It takes work to come up with great solutions. In other words not flimsy, whimsical suggestions. So I'd be a little disappointed if you'd even consider beginning such a thread, Genecks, as my expectations from your posting quality is higher than what I see in the OP. However, I'm actually not offended by your suggestions like others might be (and I wouldn't feel offense even if you had been serious in the killing aspect). The people who are offended might be sheltered from the not-so-rare expressions of "we just need to kill all the stupid people" or "..if we keep stupid people from voting" or "humanity is evil, it should be wiped out" or "kill off the poor, they're just a drain on society and/or parasites -- who keep breeding" And though I'll (often enough) challenge the person's absurd "solution" with reality as a useful stumbling block -- directly contradicting their weak reasonings -- I still keep the presence of mind to know it's just frustration speaking...as it's likely most people wouldn't really mean the absurdities they say, if put to the test. But was the OP even seriously considering the deed? Had anyone even bothered questioning if Genecks was seriously promoting killing the rich? Or was it simply just a mental exercise? In which case Genecks might've posted it under "Ethics" instead of politics. Simpy a mistake. Either way, chill out. Take the example of Mr Skeptic and others who didn't lose it, and instead rationally/calmly explored the OP's apparent fallacies.

His focus is on their deeds or arguments, not on ridiculing conservatives themselves. Specific ones like Palin maybe, but not focused on ridiculing the whole conservative ideology. Evidence of CNN and MSNBC behaving badly consistently and to the same degree throughout the network has been provided in previous threads. If you had meant it like that, and it really happened, it'd settle the matter. But no one has provided such a link. Not even close. Just misbehavior here and there, which can be said of any network including Fox Tabloids. No evidence has been provided that Fox News does this either. Well it's possible you missed the conversation... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523383#post523383 (bascule's posts) If those of you defending Fox can at least acknowledge that they're organizing politically-oriented events like the 9.12 Protests, that'd be swell. It's a lot different covering protests when your employees thought of them, picked the date and created the encompassing "project", then used your mass medium to tell everyone to be there. At that point you're not covering the news, you're creating the news, and at that point you cease to be a news organization. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523759#post523759 Fox is effectively a political action committee. They organize anti-government protests. Then they "cover" the protests they themselves organized on their "news programs". Do you think organizing anti-government protests should be a function of a news organization? What exactly is it that MSNBC does which Fox isn't doing which makes MSNBC not a news organization in your head? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523772#post523772 (Phi for All's) This reminds me of the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in Intelligent Design promotion. They themselves make the claim that science is wrong in certain aspects, then make it sound like it's a big controversy, so it's wrong not to "teach the controversy" in public schools. It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit. Ok now that we're caught up a bit, Pangloss, might you clarify where anyone has posted similar offenses by other news agencies, in a consistent manner? So make sure they're representative, and not just grasping for straws or "reaching". From previous experience, you should know I wouldn't excuse behavior that's shitty from anyone, regardless how much I like their other stuff. i.e. my ego's not more important than a problem in need of solving. You keep insisting the news act equally. Show proof, or acknowledge it's an opinion. Better yet, test it. At the end of this post are links to Google searches for news websites to see how they use ideological keywords, to promote their own ideologies or to bash the opposition? -- also, more importantly, perhaps...to do neither of those. Why don't you give it a try, and use whatever keywords you can think of? Also, try it with other news sources I didn't list. It's a much better plan than forming an opinion and blindly sticking to it. Come on, that is an insult and an attempt at ridicule, and hardly conducive to a friendly discussion. I thought we were just talking here. Pangloss, I meant the news sources we just discussed being equal to him, I didn't say you (nor implied that). [hide] [/hide]

I noticed you left out the compromise part. Might it be fair to say he could've made the announcement not because he enjoys the offshore drilling idea, but as a token of compromise to Republicans and oil?

No kidding. The conversation was about ridiculing, not how *bipartisan* a comedy show was or not. I knew you couldn't provide real examples. Show us where the other networks are forming/heading "grassroots" movements (yet pretending otherwise). Something of that caliber. If you keep insisting they're all equal, I can only assume you'd say they're equal to the 2003 Information Minister or to a sensationalist tabloid. So very wrong... And I was one of the first to introduce MSNBC's bias to the conversation. Let's not place so much reliance into opinion, shall we? As it might feel oh so true, but it can lead astray. It's fine to state opinions, but to use them as the structural foundation of counter-arguments isn't much practical.

It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights. Well, I don't see the population directly around me in a perpetual struggle doing what you claim above. It's a fantasy notion that most people are busy doing so. Yes...we must be vigilant, and not take our liberties for granted, and make sure enough people know their rights (and why). However, what's needed is direct and open transparency in government. A lack of that is what gets corrupt politicians (or their advisors/donators) to hack our rights. If people know (educational depth), and can see it plainly (government transparency), liberty is naturally preserved by a combination of the good fight, exposure of corruption, nipping at the bud, etc. Those who seem to be preocuppied so much with the notion of an everyday (and mighty) fight to preserve liberty, are the ones misled so easily by the cons who exploit that sentiment. Case in point: the "New Deal" era Supreme Court wasn't the first to make the kind of decisions claimed by the Right. But lots of converts viewing the world through enemies-colored glasses sure ate up that revision of history. And that occurred because of no Freedom of Information, secrecy in government, misleading propaganda, and related things. Notice how such an event wouldn't occur today, at least not as easily. Information's the enemy of tyranny...real information -- and the fight then happens naturally where it counts most: at the beginning of abuse, rather than at the end, or middle. Heck, it takes much less fight at that point, and instead merely a healthy dose of it tossed with a more constructive approach of ingenuity, misdeeds exposure, and voting. Cops aren't supposed to be walking like they're the enemy or bully-ish. It's what I get from your description. Unless there's some legal paperwork handy you can point to that specifies cops are meant to act like that... Well, you did spread misinformation,* and still get the benefit of doubt. It'd be different if you were doing it consistently and system-wide, doing big things to reinforce the accusation continually/systematically (like you-know-which-network). No, they get trashed for doing such activities beyond a reasonable doubt, in a more severe manner. *(by not having facts straight at beginning of thread)

Might you explain how Obama "stepped right into it"? "Today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration – but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources," Obama said in his prepared remarks. ..... The president noted that his steps were sure to displease many, but the move was a compromise plan to boost domestic energy production in the interim before renewable energy was widely available, while creating jobs and still protecting the environment. I really don't think compromise is "stepping into it". Unless you meant something different...

No it doesn't, it "runs rich" only among a minority who keep up the good fight -- while various others instead sometimes keep up the manufactured fight that works against our rights. Really? Take a look at the antiquated laws in history books. Not many people fought/scratched/clawed/ against laws that prohibited a citizen getting blow jobs by their own wife, for example. However, you don't need look too far back in history. It took a Supreme Court decision in 2003 to get Texas respecting civil liberties on that matter. No. They are supposed to protect and serve. I do think it's unwise to antagonize the cops for no reason, or to blame all of the cops for the actions of a few rotten cops, yet I do think it's anyone's right to show an officer disrespect in a non-threatening manner (and without jeopardizing the officer's routine or emergency duties). Also, it can't be something that we're legally prohibited from doing to any other citizen -- such as verbal abuse. Why can't they do both? -- Remain level-headed and perform marvelously in extremely tense situations? I certainly wouldn't trust a driver who hyper-reacts to an oncoming accident or highway pile-up. I'd trust the driver who remains cool, instantly making decisions with a calm hand on the steering wheel and legs flexible enough (to smoothly react) on the pedals. Same with cops on entering a dangerous situation that involves the rescue of my family and I. Really, wouldn't you? Yes, sometimes it does. Not if the protesters know those facts yet would keep protesting the very same inaccuracy afterwards. You and everyone were just as misinformed, yet no one was dishonest. It could be simple laziness in research by the AP, jumping to conclusions, and/or the normal inaccuracies that pop up when attempting to get the news out too quickly as a business model. Or it could be a political motivation like you implied. But to compare with Fox is just nonsense. It's not like they've mislabeled bad Democrats as "Republicans", eh? (like when Fox mislabeled bad Republicans as Democrats). However, concerning the situation of Arizona's new law, don't go by just my word about how the AP's journalists might have been lax on the research. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world. He didn't say challenge local authority at every turn. It was in reference to being able keep walking if the officer hasn't a good reason to search you, or a they don't have the legal grounds to do so.

Thanks. Let' dance... You're viewing it from the wrong angle. He ridicules the notion -- that of the false premises currently making their way around -- he doesn't ridicule the ideology as much. But it's certainly a logical, well-reasoned sketch of comedy. However we can't accept that for a simple reason: we've provided the evidence of Fox News doing the stuff we claim, so it's only proper you do the same for your claims. Remember, we're not talking bias or misreporting here and there -- rather, it's a consistent effort of blatant lies spread across various commentators, it's mislabeling bad party lawmakers as the opposition, it's constantly bashing vs a single ideology, it's crafting the news by setting up events and then deceptively making it look spontaneous, it's death panels, government taking over healthcare and supposedly placing itself between you and the doc, it's creating a movement whose #1 point of agreement is Glenn Beck's ramblings, etc. Why can't you show us just a few examples that show that level of consistency and devious purpose?

May I cut in? I'd like to see what video bascule ever posted of the Daily Show that ridicules conservatives, instead of his videos pointing out blatant examples of hypocrisy or manufactured controversies by the Right (pointed out in good humor by the Daily Show, no less). Pointing out what someone did isn't ridicule, even if the subject looks worse for the revelation. Ok go ahead vote, I won't ridicule Seriously though, you're bringing up a phantom scenario that never happened. When did anyone ever ridicule someone for how they voted? The polls are opinions. bascule has repeatedly made a point that just seems lost on certain people. Once again....it's not the bias, it's the manufactured footage: covering a "spontaneous" event that was, in reality, organized by Fox News themselves, and yet claiming it's a spontaneous event. So your comparisons are incompatible. Fox News behavior is nowhere in the same league as that of the other biased news. Do the Tea Party crowd even realize its purpose bears absolutely no similarity to that of the original Boston Tea Party? Do they realize the original Tea Party (in 1773) was a fight to increase representation in government, plus a fight against the *Tea Act* (the British law wanting to expand a corporate business's monopoly on the tea trade). Agreed. Now we're on the lookout, so before a thread in the future would get dragged into another manufactured controversy, someone here is more likely to nip it in the bud -- dissecting the linked article, pinpointing its obviously invented "facts". Much preferable that way.

Great point. I applaud the effort, but they need a way to sift through the info very quickly, but with extraordinary cross-referencing tools and innovative ways to organize the data for a variety of research needs. And in a way it's being done... http://www.data.gov/about Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. ........ Public participation and collaboration will be key to the success of Data.gov. Data.gov enables the public to participate in government by providing downloadable Federal datasets to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research. Data.gov will continue to improve based on feedback, comments, and recommendations from the public and therefore we encourage individuals to suggest datasets they'd like to see, rate and comment on current datasets, and suggest ways to improve the site. ..... A primary goal of Data.gov is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. http://datagov.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?discussionID=9474'>http://datagov.ideascale.com/a/ideafactory.do?discussionID=9474 Data.gov’s potential depends on a clear strategic intent. The Draft Data.gov CONOPS’ vision includes key principles, target audience, value to the public and government, and measures of success. Post your best ideas on strategic intent here. http://datagov.ideascale.com We opened this discussion to encourage the community to share creative ideas and help us evolve Data.gov. ..... If you are just visiting the site for the first time, we urge you to take a look at our Plan, the Draft Concept of Operations, read through the ideas already posted to the site, contribute new ideas and comments, and to vote for your favorite ideas. Great point too. Reporters should be given the chance to ask uncomfortable questions -- directly. Just remember, though....the last administration might've had the "Press-ence", yet they found loopholes to avoiding the tough questions. Also, the press had remained silent far too long vs the Bush Administration's misdeeds. Not only that, don't forget 1) journalists were bribed to promote certain laws and 2) the Bush team's propagandas were aired to the public, deceptively, as "news".

It sure does... I doubt he'll ever call them out for placing signs on (eventual victim) kids. And did he call out Bush's political gimmick of talking about a "culture of life" while a ladies holding a child mouthed "Amen" on stage behind him? (Among the countless instances of politicizing victims that Rush ignored because it came from the right-winged universe)

I erred a bit for not mentioning that other donations have impressed me: thomas jefferson donating his library to establish the Library of Congress; the Mennonites when they build houses for strangers as gifts, anonymous donations, etc. See, those people lead more by good examples than bad ones. Unlike how Rush lashes out against the poor, or is a general douche in a anti-constructive manner. Like iNow highlighted, Rush's publicity giveaways (charity) don't erase the system-wide consequences of his bad examples, lies, manufactured controversies. And I'll go further to say that the harmful results of his schemes far outweigh any good his donations will ever accomplish. The charity most often I admire is by those who don't use it to veil over their corrupt/ill actvities. But obviously a lot fewer would be posting here if they didn't give a crap and weren't trying to solve problems, including you. So to ask someone (iNow) who apparently puts a lot of time into research attempting to help pinpoint and dissect the roots of many problems, what's he "doing", is to ignore the very contents of his posts and likely reasons for him writing them. Rush Limbaugh is no better for having donated, especially when considered against the poison he sows. Not being impressed doesn't equal offense in my books. Also, you missed the point: when someone advertises their donations, it's not a sign they're a better or worse person. The same is true if a person is doing *nothing* obvious to you, it really doesn't make them a better or worse person. Go ahead and find the quote where I narrowed it down to people ideologically opposed from me. You don't even know what my ideological opposition is -- but here's a clue: it's often anything pretending to be an ideology as a lure to gain the people faithful to that same ideology yet unaware the pretender's actions help destroy that very ideology. So in essence, I'm against your true enemies. Another clue: it'll often be vs a false ideology crafted by those with lots of $$ for talented writers hired to gain the loyalty of good people, but with the intention of destroying good things standing in the way of their mega profits. It could be Democrats, Republicans, neocons, etc. Not if their other deeds are harming our countrymen in ways that outweigh the "good" being done for them. Very doubtful. Obviously you have no idea what I'm referrng to. It's at the link provided, which obviously you didn't check or would've had a relevant answer. One with the best leadership. Yeah, direct say on where their money goes Or do you follow the charities yourself and examine their bank statements, receipts, and who exactly the money got to?

With the burden shifted to lower classes, especially those who make little to no deductions. Someone must pay all those unpaid taxes. There is no "remaining" machinations. If you've taken note...even with both government programs and charity donations at work, poverty is still rampant enough in various/many areas. Charitable donations hasn't reduced the government's load, in other words. So it'd do even less by itself, without government aid in place -- and especially without tax deductions (i.e. tax shifting). Exactly my point. Because of what ParanoiA said to iNow. Rush makes the essential point that results count, and that merely giving a shit and caring is substance free rationale that doesn't help a single person. While I give you credit for caring, what is the result of it? So, if we're measuring people...shouldn't I stick with results and actions over vocalized intents and emotions? Also...I've had the subject brewing in my head for quite some time now, so I'm taking the opportunity to unload it. I'm not impressed by donations, and never been (except perhaps somewhat by those who can't afford much to give, yet offer a substantial percentage compared against their weekly measly paychecks). To insinuate that someone is less effective for caring yet not donating is somewhat lacking in perception. Maybe for some of us, to just merely donate often tends the symptoms and not so much the root of problems. Also, I don't trust many charities and even nonprofits at times. I'm not alone in feeling that either. So I've never donated except as insignificant handouts. It's not my style to donate and I'm just not inclined to, as my time and energy is spent on helping improve the world in a manner that works best for me. Right now I'm volunteering over 1,000 miles away from home -- and I'm not very loaded with money or time. Yet here's some reality to chew on: I'm no better for doing so than people who donate instead of taking direct action, or no better than people who care yet have rarely or never volunteered/donated. Any claim that someone is helping more by donating is a crock of shit. First off, we don't know what anyone here is doing in their lives, and second, it's a personal issue -- and so to boast like that about one's donating to a cause(s) is very much like attention-seeking. Now I'll take the opportunity to let everyone know also that some of what iNow has posted both in research and thoughts helped in my quest to seek/establish remarkable and practical methods for improving the world. And not just by iNow, but others here as well. Inspiration can be a strong vehicle too. And so yes, caring is often enough -- and don't forget we know nothing about members on these forums. Also, if people wanna take action, it's no one's business except theirs when or if to do so. Sometimes a good motivator come along to get us up from our asses, but they don't boast about money donated or how much they've accomplished. Perhaps it's the very reason they're a *good* motivator. Investment. Any celebrity that advertises personal donations is suspect -- not guilty automatically -- but nonetheless it doesn't impress me and never will. It's just the way I am. How's that for "politically incorrect"? You do have a point. Mine is that it doesn't impress me or elevates them above others for doing so, at least compared to someone who'd kept it anonymous (plus not tax-deductible). Or perhaps, opportunists. Except that Oprah does act like a caring person, which makes her less suspect. Rush on the other hand, acts like he's a douchebag vs the plight of many in unfortunate living conditions that he rallies against.

The most striking part of that article... One man who introduced himself as Mullah Abdul Rashid declared that the Taliban's supreme leader was "no longer interested in being involved in politics or government. ..... Reviewing the five years in which the Taliban governed Afghanistan before it was ousted by a US-led invasion force in 2001 the men declared that it had been a mistake for the Islamist movement to immerse itself in politics. Mr Rashid said: "We didn't have the capability to govern the country and we were surprised by how things went - we lacked people with either experience or technical expertise in government. ..... Mr Rashid vowed to "leave politics to civil society and return to our religious schools" when this had been achieved. ..... The Hizb-e-Islami delegation declared that it was fighting to expel foreign troops and was not seeking government positions after the war. Separation of religion from government. Now if only the religious power-seekers in the U.S. would learn that. What especially stands out is the bolded part, for its similarity to the Bush Administration's handing out important positions to those with little to no clue about them or relevant functions. I noticed the same thing. It'll most certainly be a sticking point.

Oh yeah, Rush is just oozing with tongue in cheek, good-natured, and inside humor. Explain that one. You forgot the surrounding text... The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. ..... There is a "consensus" among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct. Not exactly Colbert or Daily Show material (nor is that first link I posted above). Let's examine a more subtle point on context, as it highlights why Rush and talk radio shows often get away with lots of inconsistencies and unsupported nonsense. Investment. Rush could just keep his donation anonymous (or not so visibly *show off* the dollar figure), but that wouldn't lure people's hearts, would it? So he invests some $$ to attract more listeners and/or fans, who'd be sympathetic to his advertised "generosity". Wanna see him make a real gift? Let's see him not claim it on tax deductions. Because what's really happening is the rest of taxpayers are picking up his unpaid obligations. For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations, it's actually the same result either way A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously. Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need.

Well now, that's just a written explanation (and simply untrue at that). So as is hopefully obvious, a picture speaks nearly a thousand more words...

I voted SFN integral even though it does look busy. However, if Janus' logo were in the poll, I'd switch to that in a heartbeat. Its effect and simplicity is really quite awesome. Why can't second place go on the shirt? Only if Janus won. And/or if her's did, it can go on the back of shirt (without animation).

I was barreling down the interstate, the only car on the road late that night. Suddenly my car brightens up everywhere, with colored lights dancing and flickering about it. A vehicle drops from above to nearly the same level as my door's rearview mirror right outside. "Pull over." Wtf? When did they get hover cars? (Just a note: this would be unnerving even in a future where it's thoroughly established. Your own car roof blocks the view of what's happening above, for one thing. Even with a sunroof, the dazzling lights would just mess up your view) Oh boy, I pulled to the side. No ticket, but got a friendly warning on a slip of paper. I drove off again, half-barreling now at a smoother pace. (And not much later)...Did that even happen? Then I saw it, and everything made sense. White lettering on a dark gray background: "Speed Limit Enforced by Aircraft" [hide]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/170043315_81c2f972ea.jpg (at night though)[/hide]

To state the obvious, we didn't respond to 9/11 alQaida with nukes and even if they had used biological, we'd likely still not have done it. Also, nukes would destroy infrastructure -- often strategically -- which hurts medical response and communication system-wide, perhaps globally. Food and transportation's destroyed, ecosystems wither, livestock starve, a dominoes effect of wholesale proportions. Biological can't do the same, no matter how infectious the buggers are. I've traveled by car across the entire nation a few times, and many here probably don't realize this, but our country has an insanely vast amount of open land, no houses or infrastructure (except widely scattered about). Biological spreads via people, they're its main vehicle, so lots of people will be unaffected except in the cities. So...wait a bit and the infected die out -- especially as it'd be so deadly a virus. Plus there are lots of ships in the ocean that could wait everything out. Native people in the vast regions of Northern Canada would likely survive also. There's many such vacant regions on the planet. But nuclear winter is a threat to everyone no matter where, and not just people but other life as well -- animals, plants, etc. Surely, a few leaders even prefer the military operate under no rules, and for ill reason. Well, it's been vanished -- ever since nukes became hand-transportable and so we can't pinpoint the responsible nation in time to prevent the (rapid set of) detonations likely following it. The most strategic response then is to blanket-nuke all our potential enemies indiscriminately -- not likely to happen. Doubtful. Things are simply going your way now. However that's bound to change one day. And that was by a U.S. citizen, not by foreign terrorists. How would nukes deter people inside the attacked nation? For that matter, if someone's willing to blow themselves up or perform some other brand of crazy, what do they care if the victim nation responds with nukes? It'd propably be their goal. So how does retalliation help against that? Everyone's screwed, including the nation that unleashed the virus. And what if they crossed the virus with a plants one? (Since we're discussing fictional possibilities)

1) A poor one 2) struggling with the decision and 3) in a sub-optimal mindet when facing that important decision. Prosthetic limbs, artificial teeth implants, genetically engineered babies, mechanical hearts, organ donors, complete blood transfusions, fake eyes, hip replacement, metallic substitutes for bone parts, silicon enhancement, , bone marrow transplants. And some day we might even have brain transplants from one person to another body. Defining self will likely get more tricky in the future.

Yep, got it.

Nope. Hint: you can offer it and experience it at the same time. Ok new entry. The definition... A joint series of changes that 1) progresses naturally, 2) is noticeable only when measured from a smaller part of that series and/or when compared against a separate joint series of changes, and 3) quickens or slows depending on the level of energy within those changes. The word is ___?

I have lots of work coming up, so for anyone who posts a new entry: if you want, go ahead start up the poll for it over in The Sandbox. Although, I've been thinking of just selecting judges rather than voting, as it'd be easier for judges to assign points for entries in my absence -- if the work schedule's keeping me busy. So if anyone wishes to volunteer being a judge, do it by PM, then I'll announce the judges. (Remember that you'll be asked to judge based the four criteria in the OP) Now without further ado, I have a new entry -- and remember: don't vote on it as I no longer will be a contestant, although you can still "grade" my entries here if you feel inclined to. The definition... An insistence -- arising naturally from within a sentient being -- to ensure the continued existence and well-being of something, and to experience its presence, in order to both calm/relieve that insistence and bask in it. The word is ___? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA guideline to help determine what's an optimal entry for the thread, it's something I used to toy with mentally as a kid (and through life)... How can you describe something to a being who never has experienced it? Say a machine or alien that hasn't experienced something nearly all of us have -- for instance an emotion or abstract concept that we all know or are familiar with -- and so take it for granted such a thing doesn't need explaining. Also, probably due to that, we haven't bothered to describe it fully as we can just use another person's own experience as shorthand in the description. I'm pretty sure many of us have thought about it occasionally. So keep that in mind when creating a definition. How effective will it be for communicating its meaning to a being who's never experienced it? Bare in mind all they'd have to go by is the definition, i.e. you wouldn't be around to show them in person. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIcefire's first entry was voted on twice for a 12 average. Photon A minute body of mass that maintains its velocity and a constant rate of periodic motion. When it collides with a mass it will be either absorbed, reflected, or pass through the object with an altered velocity depending on the form of the mass. Accuracy/longevity: 2 (the mass part hurt it) Standalone: 3 (good, but "constant" and "reflected" make it not standalone) Brief/challenging: 3 (did pretty good describing it simply) Obvious: 4 (the description is almost readily obvious to physics laymen) Total 12 Next is Icefire's update... Photon A minute particle that maintains its velocity and a constant rate of periodic motion. When it collides with a mass it will be either absorbed, reflected, or pass through the object with an altered velocity depending on the form of the mass. With the minor change, let's give it one more point of accuracy. (No more voting, from now on I'll directly judge the entries until volunteers fill in). Accuracy/longevity: 3 Standalone: 3 Brief/challenging: 3 Obvious: 4 Total 13 Mr Skeptic has two entries. The first is a piggyback... Photon "A massless electromagnetic wave containing an amount of energy equal to h*f, where h is plank's constant and f is the frequency." Accuracy/longevity: ___ (Need advice on this) Standalone: 2 ("massless" and "electromagnetic" were giveaways) Brief/challenging: 5 (Awesome in each) Obvious: 4 (Almost technical, but does the job well) Total 11 + ? I shall return to finish judging its accuracy/longevity, going to seek input. Mr Skeptic's next entry. Since it's not a piggyback, I'll take the opportunity to move "accuracy" over with "Standalone". It looks pretty damn good, except for using "wave" as a dead giveaway, and except for defining something of two words -- but who cares, I'll let it go. Still, I'm gonna need a knowledgeable other to "grade" it. electromagnetic wave "A self-contained wave propagated by its own oscillating electric and magnetic fields" or "the solution to Maxwell's equations given zero charge" Accuracy/longevity: ___ Standalone/challenging: ___ Brief: ___ Obvious: ___ Close thread, please. It's over for now, be returning after work on a new thread. Clarifying the rules and improving the structure. Thanks for participating, great entries, and Mr Skeptic I'll get to yours.

Exactly what I don't like about it. The public option wouldn've been a nice competition against insurance. Then you don't even have to worry about pre-existing conditions, as such a dirty habit would lose them many customers to the government plan. So if all insurers cover all medical needs, the playing field starts with everone covered and no health insurance business would lose out if a competitor started the pre-existing denyial game for coverage. Obvious question -- didn't they already fail to do just that?

I voted "no -- i.e. "opinions aren't equally valid". And it seems clear iNow's not talking about real opinions, Mr Skeptic. For instance chocolate or favorite time of year. That would be a preference. But I think iNow's less concerned here with a factual inaccuracy, and more with someone continually replying to arguments with the same unsupported opinion -- even after its facutal basis gets debunked. It's quite the copout of last resort to simply claim "we're both entitled to opinion" as some kind of rebuttal against what's a fact, not an opinion. If you're going to dispute facts it can't be done with opinions (the preferential/unsupported kind). Example: member A can say, "true, the facts do reveal a consistency with your stance, however -- I can't really explain why -- but I still disagree and feel there's a hidden or different reason we're not seeing at the moment." But if member A instead replied something like: "no, they're incompetent". And member B revealed a list of items showing otherwise, a long history of ____ being reliably competent... Then member A replies: "oh so they're a bunch of saints? Right, we all need to open the floodgates to (insert scary whatever here)". Member B counters: "And yet the list I posted defies that. In addition, here's more data (links/quotes)" Reply by member A: "we all know if this happens it'll end up doing ____. They lack direct motivation so end up being incompetent, no surprise there really". Frustration creep beginning? Especially when you know a similar talking point's circling the nation in the form of systematically distributed propaganda (about "incompetent" whatever). You'd rather talk substance, not enter a rehash of a complaint not quite based on reality. Can I talk to you, and not the (misinformed/dishonest) commentator or website you heard that from? Anyway... Unsupported opinions have a less solid foundation on which to overturn the argument. In fact, they have no solid ground or basis whatsoever. And I think iNow's point of contention is where a member keeps posting such an opinion in response to most posts of well-supported arguments based on facts (i.e. not vs opinion) down the line. So if that's the case, I'd recommend to iNow the same as a mod had earlier: to report the offending post, if you're bothered that much by a person's continual intellectual dishonesty and/or bypassing your supported arguments repeatedly with unsupported opinions. The mods do act on such instances of blatant elusive maneuverings. Just a look through the infractions of Banned/Suspended Users... ____ has accumulated enough infraction points for....Trolling, including but not limited to simple repetition of arguments and refusal to address points brought up, as well as strawman arguments. ____ has been banned for....Repeatedly posting the same errors, at length, after being shown why they were errors (i.e. trolling/refusal to acknowledge cited information). ____ temporarily suspended for infractions resulting from persistent logical fallacies, etc. ____ has been permanently banned due to persistent fallacious arguments and general intellectual dishonesty. And there was much rejoicing. ____ has continued to post the same pet theory after having it debunked, against the requests of Staff, and so has been permanently banned due to repeated inconsistencies with the purpose of this forum. ____ has been automatically suspended for three days after repeated rules violations, including refusal to cite sources and trolling. ____ has been banned for....and being a fountain of misinformation on a number of topics. A bit unfair, Mr Skeptic. iNow didn't claim the "worth less" in the OP, and clearly stated he didn't mean worthless. Phi for All just recently stepped in as moderator to remind me not to assume the manner by which someone posted, yet here it the same thing occurring vs iNow. Yes, maybe his attitude could be a wee more tactful, but I see no reason to assign motives or declare his intentions from just the OP and poll. Also, for the record, I think post #37 missed something by quoting iNow: that his reply to Pangloss seemed intended to be friendly. "Join the chorus" was in reference to the song or whatever iNow linked to. And was nothing personal, just seemed to lament that Pangloss apparently viewed it as "mostly harmless" or non-existent threat. Which is a legitimate feeling by Pangloss, and he can't be shown wrong unless he made predictions or tried using it as a factual base -- or was proven drastically wrong by future events.