Are you planning on seeing Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' when it hits the theatres?

Gee, I expected this to be one of Brian's...

> |> |> And fortunately scientists understand
> that. They
> |> |> also understand going along with the
> party line
> |> |> so they can get funding. It'll come
> out eventually
> |> |> and someone will proclaim a revolution.
> Then
> |> |> everyone will say they were right
> all along.
> |> |> It'll be fun to watch.
> |>
> |> Are you even aware of the irony there? Dipcrap,
> my side doesn't take
> |> thosudands of dolars from oil companies
> via right wign think tanks
> |> to go to major newspapers and sya "oh the
> jury is still out." Face
> |> it, your side is the side of liars who don't
> care about what happens
> |> to this, the only planet we have. The sooner
> you accept that, the
> |> sooner you can maybe start acting like a
> human being.
>
> No, you're right. "Your side" just takes hundreds
> from the government in the form of funding. Don't
> act like they're innocent little angels who would
> never falsify a finding using scare tactics and
> exaggerations if they thought that they would
> get more funding from Uncle Sam.
>

They actually have often had the results of their studies foricbly reworded or even removed by political appointees. Oh, adn the scientists come form over a 100 different countries with varying forms of government. COme on, stop being a fukcstick and smell a clue. Your side bribes, distorsts, alters studiy results, and gets their lickpsiitles on CNN and FOx to compare Al Gore to the Nazis. My side tries to protect endangered speices anddevelop alternative fossil fuels. To use a super-geeky analogy, you are the Sleestacks, we are Marshall, Will, and Holly.

> What Republicans would do on top of that is eliminate
> the law requiring that hospitals treat everybody,
> regardless of ability to pay or why you got sick
> in the first place. Thus homeless crack-heads
> wouldn't be able to use us the medical system
> and just not pay because they don't have any money,
> which increases the costs for everybody else.
> They would also put caps on lawsuits which also
> has a tendency to make the costs go up.

OK, you say crap like that and I can't compare you to Nazis, why?

No, there are others than Brian who like Michael Moore.

Hym, I am not exactly sure what "my side" is anyway. I won't waste my time debating where the line ends on my side.

I am simply pointing out that scientists are human, and are susceptible to human nature just like everyone else. That means peer pressure, wanting to fit in, money and prestige, etc.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with that policy. I am just saying that there are some Republicans who would advocate that, which isn't really that unreasonable if you ask me.

Denying health services to chronic homeless junkies shouldn't be off the table, not that we should start implementing it right away.

Well, it wasn't just that. He's also done quite a few "Are you planning on seeing" surveys.

I see he's already managed to hijack this one for some long-winded rants and arguments.

> Hym, I am not exactly sure what "my side" is anyway.
> I won't waste my time debating where the line
> ends on my side.
>
> I am simply pointing out that scientists are human,
> and are susceptible to human nature just like
> everyone else. That means peer pressure, wanting
> to fit in, money and prestige, etc.

So, ignore the evidence, and attack the people then?

> Well, it wasn't just that. He's also done quite
> a few "Are you planning on seeing" surveys.
>

But those are usually for geek event movies. The reaosn I haven't done any this year was becuase there were so many (300, Grindhouse, TMNT, 28 Weeks Later, Spider-Man 3...) and the year isn't even half over yet.

No, I mean take into account that pro-global warming scientists are just as bad or almost as bad as the anti-global warming scientists. How is getting funding from the government to come up with the cure for global warming any different than getting $$ from the oil companies.

I am under the impression that its ok to attack the people and ignore the evidence if it comes from the "oil people" but not ok if the evidence comes from Environmental Scientists (the ones who probably couldn't make it as a real scientist).

The oil companies would be doing it to protect their profits. They'll hope (pay) for scientific results that show they aren't hurting the environment. They don't want to have to 'clean up their act.' Environmental scientists aren't out to protect any business interests. They really believe in what they are studying. What business benefits would they get out of it?

But this is begging the question that the oil companies are really screwing up the environment to begin with. Ok, they are, but how much of an exaggeration is global warming. Its a very complicated science, which can't be summed up by an Al Gore movie.



"They really believe in what they are studying."

Which doesn't automatically translate into them being right.



"What business benefits would they get out of it?"

None, but they do get a nice warm fuzzy felling, tenure and/or pay raises, praise from their colleagues, etc. Thats a motive to distort the truth as well.

Oil companies aren't scientists. The only reason for them to fund studies that favor them is to protect their profits. It seems slick to the point of unethical. Their interests don't belong in the science of it. It's all about money for them. Environmental scientists are in a different category. I think that's the distinction Frostbrand is trying to make.

> No, I mean take into account that pro-global warming
> scientists are just as bad or almost as bad as
> the anti-global warming scientists.

I would, if it were true. But it isn't.

> How is getting
> funding from the government to come up with the
> cure for global warming any different than getting
> $$ from the oil companies.

If you have to ask that, you have no hope. It's like sayign there's no differnece being hiring a bodyguard to prevent a violent death, andhiring a hit man to cause one.

> I am under the impression that its ok to attack
> the people and ignore the evidence if it comes
> from the "oil people" but not ok if the evidence
> comes from Environmental Scientists (the ones
> who probably couldn't make it as a real scientist).

Except they don't have evidence SoYa, they have people being bribed to say the evidence that there is is "inconclsuive." let's say you're a scientist working for the U.S. government, and your funds have been slashed to pay for illegal wars and foricng internaitonal hetalh organizations to never mention abortion. Then to top it off, when depsite that you still find out there is not only global climate change, but that man kind is a major factor in it, the govenremnt alters your findings to make it seem like the evidence is 'iffy' when it wasn't, AND THEN some punk kid from AEI offer you $10,000 to go to the New York Times and say "the jury is still out." To you SoYa, that is perfectly okay. Don't say it isn't, because you have consistently taken the side in the global warming debate of those who have to bribem and alter, and LIE to make their case, which proves to me that they have none. Global warming (which I won't dispute is a bad name for the problem) is real, and we have at minimum ten years to do soemthing about it. Not to reverse it, it's too late for that, but to mitigate the damage. Of course, the Right Wing has two types of people. Those who don't give a crap cuase they think they're money will protect them, adn those who think that God won't elt it happen. Sadly, they are the ones in power. Thanks in part to people like you who may not agree with them and didn't vote for them, but do them the service of sayign they're arguments actually ahve some validity.

> The oil companies would be doing it to protect
> their profits. They'll hope (pay) for scientific
> results that show they aren't hurting the environment.
> They don't want to have to 'clean up their act.'
> Environmental scientists aren't out to protect
> any business interests. They really believe in
> what they are studying. What business benefits
> would they get out of it?

> But this is begging the question that the oil
> companies are really screwing up the environment
> to begin with. Ok, they are, but how much of
> an exaggeration is global warming. Its a very
> complicated science, which can't be summed up
> by an Al Gore movie.
>
>
>
> "They really believe in what they are studying."
>
> Which doesn't automatically translate into them
> being right.
>
>
>
> "What business benefits would they get out of
> it?"
>
> None, but they do get a nice warm fuzzy felling,
> tenure and/or pay raises, praise from their colleagues,
> etc. Thats a motive to distort the truth as well.

That just reeks of desperation. "They're being bribed with being liked and havign a sense of accomplishment! That's just as bad as being given more money than many Americans make in a year after taxes!"

"If you have to ask that, you have no hope."

hym, I think I see where this is going. You are looking at it from a moral point of view, not a scientific one. Morally speaking, clearly there is a difference between the two, the oil guys are much, much worse. When I say "just as bad" or "almost as bad", I am referring to the accuracy of the "science" that they produce. I am more concerned about the outcome, not the intent. Just take a look as the end result of the overzealous banning of DDT.



"It's like sayign there's no differnece being hiring a bodyguard to prevent a violent death, andhiring a hit man to cause one."

I think a better analogy would be failing to hire a bodyguard when you should which RESULTS in a death, verses ordering a hit, which RESULTS in a death. Or better yet, hiring an incompetent body guard that accidentally shoots an innocent person while on the job. I am NOT talking about morality here, just the outcome.



"Except they don't have evidence SoYa, they have people being bribed to say the evidence that there is is "inconclsuive.""

No, the evidence really is inconclusive. They're getting bribed to either say that its totally not true or at least highlight the outcomes of the studies that supports their claim. I think Fordguy posted a NASA study that tracked the global temperatures which showed the differences weren't that drastic. If you looked at the history of the world, I believe that the temperature was actually higher during the Middle Ages than it is now.

Pffff... I guess you know I 'love' Brian or that I at least support his beliefs which usually are un-american.
But I also get tired of his cursing and ranting.

I don't see many movies in the theatre certainly not ones like this. I may rent it, I haven't decided yet. It's summer and my time is pretty valuable right now. So much to do. I don't watch much tv or stuff on tv like video's this time of year.

No not really my thing.

I'm interested in seeing it, but I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.

> geek event movies

Is that a new genre in film? I'm so out of it these days. I finally went to the cinema again the other day. First time in three years. I saw Bielinsky's swan song "El Aura" (2005). Have you seen that one? I can't say that I'm much of an Argentinean film aficionado. My only prior experience was Subiela's "Man Facing Southeast" (1986).

I was hoping to get a sense of this noisy cinema patrons controversy that everyone has been talking about lately, but it was very quiet. Maybe the wrong kind of film for that...

I suspect he might be a communist. Or at the very least, soft on terrorism.

> |> geek event movies
>
> Is that a new genre in film? I'm so out of it
> these days. I finally went to the cinema again
> the other day. First time in three years. I saw
> Bielinsky's swan song "El Aura" (2005). Have you
> seen that one? I can't say that I'm much of an
> Argentinean film aficionado. My only prior experience
> was Subiela's "Man Facing Southeast" (1986).
>
> I was hoping to get a sense of this noisy cinema
> patrons controversy that everyone has been talking
> about lately, but it was very quiet. Maybe the
> wrong kind of film for that...

http://www.amazon.com/Must-See-Geek-Movies/lm/R24T...

I've seen 8/21. Only one of which I would call "good", two of which I would call "crap" and the rest "okay".

How does that place me in the "geek event movie" scheme of things?

Well, that was just a sampling. I was giving an example, not a list. A full list would take forver to write.

Well it certainly gives me an idea.

Happy Birthday Maarten!

Thanks!!

You're welcome!