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

I can describe Michael Moore in one word: butt-hole.

definitely!

I'm not particularly interested in the film... I doubt I'll see it.

Sure, if I need a good nap.

Honestly, one might argue Bowling for Columbine was mildly amusing, but Fahrenheit 911 was nearly unwatchable. If we follow the pattern, Sicko will be so boring it will kill me not just put me to sleep.

I think Michael Moore is full of crap. And frankly, I live in Canada. I'm generally more inclined to watch movies concerning Canadian issues.

Now, now, you're just being nice there.

No, but I may watch it on DVD or cable later... I've seen all of Michael Moore's films on DVD or cable (none at a theater).

Frankly, his films tend to piss me off. They seem very biased to me, and his tactics are manipulative. I credit Michael Moore with helping me become less liberal in the last decade or so, since I have such a bad reaction to what he's doing (I don't want to be like that). Still, I think there have been some interesting segments in his films, particularly "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" (the Marylin Manson inverview was great, also the interview with the Culture of Fear author was excellent). Also, since he has such a following, I often want to see his films, just so I know what people are talking about.

I also watched his TV show, "TV Nation". I think it only had one season. It was really pretty good. He's a funny guy and I like him best when he does funny stuff, exposing the absurdity of our culture. Politically, I don't think he's as good. I wish he'd go back to doing funny stuff, but I think it's too late now.

Sure!
I have watched Michael Moore's programs for more than 10 years now. First on the BBC with TV Nation and later The Awful Truth, which were later also broadcast on Dutch tv.
What I like about him, whether you agree with him or not, is that he really makes you think about issues by stretching your boundaries.

(Was that clear English for everyone? I have trouble saying it correctly.)

Only if I'm dragged there, kicking and screaming.

Probably not in the theater, but I wouldn't mind seeing it on DVD

Probably not since I don't care for theatre-viewing unless my neighbor drags me there--with something like this, it's not likely he would. I might watch parts of it on my computer though, if it were available as a service I could afford or free -- or if I checked out the DVD at the library. It's good there's a way of educating the public via this method though, to get the movie-goers. I'd read the reviews and a book about it checked out from the library.

No, I won't get the chance. I saw Bowling for Columbine at the cinema, but with a distinct lack of babysitting options I haven't been to the cinema in about 18 months.

It;s unlikely - I haven't seen any of his other films, in the cinema or elsewhere.

Plain no. Just boring, really in your face style bombardment about a system I'll probably never need to know anything about.

Probably when it comes out on HBO/Showtime........ I wouldnt go the theatre to watch it and wouldnt buy the DVD (stuff like this for me is not re-watchable) but I thought Farenhieght 9/11 was thought provoking

If I can get to it. The bus line I used to take to get the Chez Artiste (an art house theatre in Denver) got discontinued.

> I can describe Michael Moore in one word: butt-hole.

You tend to think that of anyone who bursts your redneck bubble and forces you to see reality.

> Plain no. Just boring, really in your face style
> bombardment about a system I'll probably never
> need to know anything about.

You don't need to know anything about the health care system? Only if you and your family are super lucky.

> I also watched his TV show, "TV Nation". I think
> it only had one season. It was really pretty
> good. He's a funny guy and I like him best when
> he does funny stuff, exposing the absurdity of
> our culture. Politically, I don't think he's
> as good. I wish he'd go back to doing funny stuff,
> but I think it's too late now.

It had two seasons. One on NBC, one on Fox.

> Honestly, one might argue Bowling for Columbine
> was mildly amusing, but Fahrenheit 911 was nearly
> unwatchable. If we follow the pattern, Sicko
> will be so boring it will kill me not just put
> me to sleep.

Of course F 9/11 was unwatchable to you. Anything that exposes truth about right wingers makes your eyes bleed I bet.

Hm, I might have seen both, I don't recall very clearly. It was a mid-90s, right? I remember there were a lot of other people on the show, doing bits too. Jeanine Garofalo did a "Johns for Justice" piece that I thought was great.

That was Karen Duffy who did the Johns for Justice thing.

Oops... OK, clearly, my memory is pretty bad.

Brian, you're so smart. And wonderful. And amazing.

Or if I have the National Health Service

BURN!

That's OK. Janeane was on the show during the first year, that probably explains it.

> Or if I have the National Health Service
>
> BURN!

Oh, are you Canadian? You lucky goit.

Hey, for once you're telling the truth. Hope it didn't hurt too much.

English

Calling Michael Moore's movies "documentaries" is rather inaccurate. I suppose they document in what way he's being an butt-hole this time, but as far the subject matter itself they're poorly made propaganda. I say poorly made because he's so obviously manipulative. He's more into playing the role than investigating the subject matter.

Cool.

> Calling Michael Moore's movies "documentaries"
> is rather inaccurate. I suppose they document
> in what way he's being an butt-hole this time, but
> as far the subject matter itself they're poorly
> made propaganda. I say poorly made because he's
> so obviously manipulative. He's more into playing
> the role than investigating the subject matter.

Not true, but that's hardly surprising coming from the enviromental holocaust denier

So, are you kind of a Micheal Moore expert?

I guess, at least as anyone whose only ever talked to the guy via e-mail can be.

You exchanged emails with him!

I agree with Moore on a lot of things, but I can still see that he could present his views in a more factual/basic (though less entertaining) way. I like him, but there are things missing from the way he states his cases. I guess it's so full of 'color' that a person who hasn't yet given the issues much thought can't hardly see the black and white. Best I can explain it. Does that make sense? His films cater to people who already agree with him.

A long time ago. We talked about the state of American radio, which has actually gotten worse since we had the conversation (this was before BFC had even been finished). Clear Channel is still the Galactic Empire of American radio ownership conglomerates (and Right Wign talk is their Death Star).

OK, but who are the Ewoks?

Probably not. I hadn't even heard of it til this survey. I have seen Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 though

Probably not, although I don't know anything about it.

You're just wise beyond your years. And hot, too, if I may add.

Oooh. I'm a denier now. Cool. Not true of course, as anyone who paid attention to what I've said would know. Besides, since it hasn't happened yet, there's nothing yet to deny. Give it a few decades. Then, if the disaster you predict comes to pass, then I can be a denier and say it didn't happen.

Do you really think your sarcasm is accomplishing anything? Oh wait, you're a Right Winger. You can't think without letting some crazy guy who cliams to talk to God telling you how to.

> Oooh. I'm a denier now. Cool. Not true of course,
> as anyone who paid attention to what I've said
> would know. Besides, since it hasn't happened
> yet, there's nothing yet to deny. Give it a few
> decades. Then, if the disaster you predict comes
> to pass, then I can be a denier and say it didn't
> happen.

It's happening, you deny it's happening, occasionally you downshift to denying it's impact, thus my statement.

Probably not. DVDs rock. I'll wait.

What a slanted, heavily opinionated explanation.

Probably won't see it.... have better things to do.

I don't deny it has warmed slightly over the past three decades and I don't disagree with analyses that say the climate can change rapidly. I just think your predictions for future, catastrophic warming are weakly supported and that the evidence that this will be human caused is doubtful given the much larger temperature excursions that pre-dated human industrial activity. Yet no matter how many times I say it and how many different ways, you continue to misunderstand and misconstrue my plain words.

Not at the theater... but I'll prolly catch it later.

I liked his earlier flicks.... Bowling for Columbine was boring and Fahrenheit was interesting until they started flashing pictures I didn't want to see.... then I was offended and turned it off.

Just ignore Brian, he seems stressed this week. Perhaps he's dealing with stuff in his personal life and his anger is spilling out into Survey Central. The main problem Brian has is that you repeat information that has already been established as wrong by the scientific community. In his eyes, this makes you a liar (irrespective of whether you knew it was wrong or not). In Brian's head, if you say something he thinks is untrue (for whatever reason) you're a dirty, stinking liar - case closed, don't even bother to call the jury.

On the flipside, I've yet to see him back up anything he says with links to useful articles (badly written blogs on geocities don't count).

If you'd like to know more about Climate change myths, there was an excellent article in a recent issue of New Scientist.

Here's the link. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

Brian appears to be acting completely normally in my experience with him.

I saw that New Scientist article. I thought it was "so so". I keep being drawn back to this paper about how upsetting the haline cycle can shut down the Gulf Stream and cause rapid and dramatic climate change in northern Europe. The first half of the paper surveys global temperature variations for the entire history of the planet, rather than just the last 150 years. It's fascinating and the variations have been enormous compared to the fractions of a degree that people are talking about now.

Then, for no known reason, the climate stabilized 10,000 years ago. Coincidentally (probably not really a coincidence) that's when human civilization started coming together. It seems to me that any suggestion that we know what is destabilizing the climate now is nonsense if they don't also explain what stabilized it 10,000 years ago.

The link takes me to a page about a sailboat.

Oh. Oops. Nice looking little sailboat, isn't it. I love the look of wooden boats but I don't know that I want to sign up for the maintenance required.

Try this link instead.

> |> I can describe Michael Moore in one word:
> butt-hole.
>
> You tend to think that of anyone who bursts your
> redneck bubble and forces you to see reality.
>

Hi Brian. Nice to see you again.

I know. It's tough for me to be harsh.

Wow, you're so smart, Brian! You're right, I am a right-winger and I let that crazy guy who claims he talks to God to tell me how to. You know, without you I'd be lost.

> I don't deny it has warmed slightly over the past
> three decades and I don't disagree with analyses
> that say the climate can change rapidly. I just
> think your predictions for future, catastrophic
> warming are weakly supported and that the evidence
> that this will be human caused is doubtful given
> the much larger temperature excursions that pre-dated
> human industrial activity. Yet no matter how
> many times I say it and how many different ways,
> you continue to misunderstand and misconstrue
> my plain words.

The evidence is doubtful? A previously unheard of level of consensus in the scientific community is doubtful? Geez, what's next, questioning gravity?

> On the flipside, I've yet to see him back up anything
> he says with links to useful articles (badly written
> blogs on geocities don't count).

To use you're term, you're "wrong" here (liar would be more accurate, but I'm feeling generous today). When have I ever linked to a bad GeoCities Blog? Oh wait, that would be never. But I think you already knew that. Information Clearing House is not a "bad blog." Nor is the BBC, or Media Matters.

> If you'd like to know more about Climate change
> myths, there was an excellent article in a recent
> issue of New Scientist.
>
> Here's the link. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

New Scientist is a great magazine. I was so sad when they cancelled their podcast.

Again, I have to ask, whta exactly do you hoppe to accomplish with your sarcasm? If you're trying to goad me, it's not working. It just makes me sad that someone can be grown up enough to read Steinbeck and yet somehow still be retarded.

Exhibit A, and that took me all of 5 seconds to find.

http://surveycentral.org/survey/20377.html

And yes, New Scientist is a great magazine.

A well written opinion piece with historically backed up facts that is only ONE of the sources I provide is a "bad blog" to you? And why did you leave out the second link? Familiar with the phrase "lie of omission?" Oh, and BTW, anyone who clicks that link will see the context that you left out. Again, you are wrong. At the very least. No, wait, you aren't wrong. You just lie. Unless of course you didn't think to read the link you just used against me, which would not in the least surprise me.

You seem to have a problem with continuity and chronology. I made a point to dab about how (to my knowledge) you tend not to back your statements up with links to recognised, established sites. Sure, you might post a forum thread that is a copy/paste of an article you've just read that you wanted to share, but you seem to have a habit of using unverified statements as a way of accusing someone of being a liar for disagreeing with you. I made a reference to geocities based on a memory of you linking to a page there. Blog was the wrong word perhaps, but like I said, it was from memory . You asked me to give you an example. I used the search facility of this site to find one.

Why did I leave out the second link? Because my comment to dab didn't mention the second link. Remember, I made the comment to dab before you asked me to give you an example and therefore before I looked for it.

And for the record, I happen to think it *is* badly written. I read it at the time and I've re-read it now. Does my opinion of the quality of the writing in the article make me a liar? If a movie critic gets a Kevin Smith film a bad review, do you call them a liar too? Criticism, even literary criticism, is largely subjective. It's not helped by the fact that the article appears to have been translated from German, badly. Words like 'spontanic' and phrases like 'professors that had enough from the tyranny' just make the whole thing an awkward read.

But no, perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm lying after all. Perhaps I think it's a literary triumph on a par with War and Peace.

> You seem to have a problem with continuity and
> chronology. I made a point to dab about how (to
> my knowledge) you tend not to back your statements
> up with links to recognised, established sites.

And I guess you're the one who gets to decide what is "recognised and established?" So I guess all the times I've cited, say, BBC, or Ha'aretz, those are just bad blogs right?

> Sure, you might post a forum thread that is a
> copy/paste of an article you've just read that
> you wanted to share, but you seem to have a habit
> of using unverified statements as a way of accusing
> someone of being a liar for disagreeing with you.

That old linea gain? Listen, I;m only goign to say this one more time, slowly, in bold letters so MAYBE it'll drill through that thick skull of yours. I call people liars, when, they LIE!

> I made a reference to geocities based on a memory
> of you linking to a page there. Blog was the wrong
> word perhaps, but like I said, it was from memory
> . You asked me to give you an example. I used
> the search facility of this site to find one.

You said "bad blogs form GeoCities" not "posting of an historically accurate story from Nazi Germany found ona GeoCities page."

> Why did I leave out the second link? Because my
> comment to dab didn't mention the second link.
> Remember, I made the comment to dab before you
> asked me to give you an example and therefore
> before I looked for it.
>
> And for the record, I happen to think it *is*
> badly written.

Because it's true.

> I read it at the time and I've
> re-read it now. Does my opinion of the quality
> of the writing in the article make me a liar?
> If a movie critic gets a Kevin Smith film a bad
> review, do you call them a liar too?

No, I just doisagree, because a critic of Kevin Smith's movies isn't dismissing a piece of historical context to win an argument, he's just not liking a moive that I did. Big whoop.

> Criticism,
> even literary criticism, is largely subjective.
> It's not helped by the fact that the article appears
> to have been translated from German, badly. Words
> like 'spontanic' and phrases like 'professors
> that had enough from the tyranny' just make the
> whole thing an awkward read.

I notice you don't argue the merits or the facts, just the grammar. Which goes back to something I said in the Forums earlier today. The first thing you go for is the typing. Not the case it makes, or the facts it cites. Erego, you lost the argument.

> But no, perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm lying
> after all. Perhaps I think it's a literary triumph
> on a par with War and Peace.

I think you believe so strongly that thing sin this country aren't as bad as they are that you will do anythign to fool yourself into seeing nothign wrong. Denial is the longest river in the world.

Oh come on Brian. Even you're clever enough to know what "recognised and established" means. I pay for the BBC, you know. I know how well respected it is. And for the record, I've just done a search and I can't find a single example of you linking to a BBC article to back up a comment you've made. Prove me wrong.

And I'm sorry to have to turn that drill back at your own thick skull, but time and again you call people liars when they say something you think is untrue, regardless of the context or intention.

People form opinions based on assumptions which in turn are based on their own experience, memory and prejudices. When someone shares their opinion on a subject and that opinion happens to be based on an assumption you think is untrue, you call them a liar. If you say something that can be interpreted in more than one way and someone happens to interpret it in a way you didn't intend, you call them a liar. If someone makes fun of you by satirising or caricaturing you, you call them a liar.

I've seen you do it many, many times over the years. I'd also go as far as saying that I don't think I'm alone in thinking this.

You've previously admitted that when it comes to choosing between

a) asking for clarification from someone because they've made a point you disagree with
and
b) calling them a liar

you opt for the latter simply because it's easier.

A "previously unheard of level of consensus in the scientific community"? Are you serious? There are plenty of historical examples of consensus in the scientific community that have turned out to be wrong. It's a cliche now. Issues like continents being fixed in place, space being euclidean and fixed, light being a wave propagating through some so-far undetected medium called the luminiferous aether, maggots generating spontaneously from rotten meat, disease being caused because you'd offended the gods, planetary orbits are perfect circles, evolution happens through slow changes accumulating over time, and on and on.

As for questioning gravity, there was a major change in our understanding of gravity with Newton's theory of universal gravitation and another major change with Einstein's general relativity. Given the still unsolved problem of reconciling GR with quantum physics, physicists are pretty sure that the last shake-up hasn't come yet. So yes, I question gravity.

Note, much like with global warming, I don't question that gravity exists. I do question that we know why it exists. We have these equations that enable people who're much more skilled at math than I to compute the myriad effects that gravity will have on objects (forces, trajectory, time dilation, and so on). Einstein made an assumption that gravitational mass and inertial mass were the same. We've never found a case where they were not but we have no idea why that should be the case. And I'm quite certain that we don't know how to control gravity.

> Oh come on Brian. Even you're clever enough to
> know what "recognised and established" means.
> I pay for the BBC, you know. I know how well respected
> it is. And for the record, I've just done a search
> and I can't find a single example of you linking
> to a BBC article to back up a comment you've made.
> Prove me wrong.

Maybe it was at one of the other websites I frequent, but I'm pretty sure I've linked to them on the forums. I know for sure I've linked to the Guardian.

> And I'm sorry to have to turn that drill back
> at your own thick skull, but time and again you
> call people liars when they say something you
> think is untrue, regardless of the context or
> intention.
>
> People form opinions based on assumptions which
> in turn are based on their own experience, memory
> and prejudices. When someone shares their opinion
> on a subject and that opinion happens to be based
> on an assumption you think is untrue, you call
> them a liar.

No matter how mnay times I say, I only call liars, liars," you just keep on obliviously sailing.

> If you say something that can be
> interpreted in more than one way and someone happens
> to interpret it in a way you didn't intend, you
> call them a liar.

No, I call them out for distorting, or taking things out of context.

> If someone makes fun of you
> by satirising or caricaturing you, you call them
> a liar.

I call liars liars. How many times must I say it?

> I've seen you do it many, many times over the
> years. I'd also go as far as saying that I don't
> think I'm alone in thinking this.
>
> You've previously admitted that when it comes
> to choosing between
>
> a) asking for clarification from someone because
> they've made a point you disagree with
> and
> b) calling them a liar
>
> you opt for the latter simply because it's easier.

When? Are you referring to when i said it's better to call someone a liar then use some wishy-washy PC terminology like "that's not wholly accurate," or "I'm sorry but I think you have your facts wrong"? If you have a porblem with that, then you are truly useless.

> A "previously unheard of level of consensus in
> the scientific community"? Are you serious?

Yes.

> There are plenty of historical examples of consensus
> in the scientific community that have turned out
> to be wrong.

The difference being, not that you care, they didn't have the technologies and understanding in the days of leeches-as-medicine as they do now. Of course, tkaing that context into account kind of wounds your argument don't it?

> It's a cliche now. Issues like
> continents being fixed in place, space being euclidean
> and fixed, light being a wave propagating through
> some so-far undetected medium called the luminiferous
> aether, maggots generating spontaneously from
> rotten meat, disease being caused because you'd
> offended the gods, planetary orbits are perfect
> circles, evolution happens through slow changes
> accumulating over time, and on and on.

Whoa, wait, did you just toss a creationist argument in there at the end?

> As for questioning gravity, there was a major
> change in our understanding of gravity with Newton's
> theory of universal gravitation and another major
> change with Einstein's general relativity. Given
> the still unsolved problem of reconciling GR with
> quantum physics, physicists are pretty sure that
> the last shake-up hasn't come yet. So yes, I
> question gravity.

OK, so like a Holocaust denier you take legitamte debate among the scientific community about how gravity works and extrapolate that to "I question gravity?"

> Note, much like with global warming, I don't question
> that gravity exists.

You just did. Your own words; "So yes, I question gravity."

> I do question that we know
> why it exists. We have these equations that enable
> people who're much more skilled at math than I
> to compute the myriad effects that gravity will
> have on objects (forces, trajectory, time dilation,
> and so on). Einstein made an assumption that
> gravitational mass and inertial mass were the
> same. We've never found a case where they were
> not but we have no idea why that should be the
> case. And I'm quite certain that we don't know
> how to control gravity.

Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

In all fairness, I will say that you're renwed my interest in the subject of gravity. I'll find some books on the subject to add to my Amazon wish list.

Cute sailboat!

You might find this article interesting:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6549227

That is interesting. It's a shame Alaska doesn't have an Air America or Nova M affiliate.

> The difference being, not that you care, they didn't have the technologies
> and understanding in the days of leeches-as-medicine as they do now.
> Of course, tkaing that context into account kind of wounds your argument
> don't it?

Not in the least. Sure, we have better technologies now and better understanding but I think that assuming therefore that everything we suppose now is true and scientists are no longer wrong is foolish.

> |> circles, evolution happens through slow changes
> |> accumulating over time, and on and on.
>
> Whoa, wait, did you just toss a creationist argument in there at the
> end?

You like that one? The creationists try to argue that evolution is wrong because the slow steady change version has been replaced by the punctuated equilibrium version. Well, in a way, they're right. The older theory, despite how it was accepted by a consensus of scientists, appears to have been wrong. The newer theory could be wrong too but it's the best theory we have right now to explain the facts. That's what happens in science.

> OK, so like a Holocaust denier you take legitamte debate among the
> scientific community about how gravity works and extrapolate that
> to "I question gravity?"

I don't see any comparison to the WWII Holocaust but I definitely see one with your environmental holocaust. We don't understand the why's and wherefore's of gravity and I don't think we understand climate either.

> In all fairness, I will say that you're renwed my interest in the
> subject of gravity. I'll find some books on the subject to add to
> my Amazon wish list.

Gravity is a subject where surprisingly little is know. We have all these equations for what, but no clue at all as to the underlying mechanisms. We just know that it is.

Yeah, isn't that a nice looking little sailboat? I'm tempted to go look at it but I don't live very near the ocean and I worry about maintaining a wooden hull.

I might not see this and no movie theatre for me

Yes, I am retarded. Thank you for the diagnosis. Are you a doctor? If not, you really should be!

He's too fudging immature for me to have a normal conversation or argument with. So I'm not going to.

> A "previously unheard of level of consensus in the scientific community"?

Fortunately science is not a democracy.

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.

Most likely not, unless it would be free and I have enough spare time to blow off. I guess I could try to sneak it or wait until it hits regular TV.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the US medical system has many, many flaws. I just don't think that Michael Moore, or even the "liberals" in general has all the answers. I don't particularly care to watch a well-intended heavily biased film. I don't think that "his side" is right, and I don't think that their solution is the right way to go. There are probably much better ways to deal with the problem.

I will just watch the flamewar from a distance between Frosty and all the other people.

I'm curious. What do republicans think should be done about the working uninsured (or underinsured, as is the case most of the time)

Might start a trend

Look, if you aren't going to answer my question, the one about what you expect to accomplish by acting like a moron than just say so and stop acting like Paris Hilton.

> 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.

You'd skirted falling into the name calling with me but now you've toppled over the edge. Conversation over, you lose.

> I know for sure I've linked to the Guardian.

Good for you. I read the Guardian every day, although I tend not to link to it in order to prove a point because, after all, it is just a newspaper and all newspapers have an editorial slant. I've created forum threads that linked to Guardian articles many times (if I happened to think they were interesting), but the one and only time I can think of when I linked to the Guardian in order to prove a point was when Glassa posted a story from the Washington Times about Russia being implicated in the smuggling of WMD out of Iraq. I posted links to 10 stories from 10 different news sites (one of which was the Guardian) showing how the same story had been reported differently.

> I call liars liars. How many times must I say it?

You'll keep on having to say it until you start doing it or until you refine your definition of the word 'lie' until it's more in keeping with what everyone else thinks it means. You accused me of lying in this very discussion when I'd done no such thing. A lie is a false statement, deliberately and knowingly presented as being true. Therefore, unless you can prove that the person making the statement knew it to be false, you can't accuse them of lying. But you never bother to find that out, because accusing the other person of lying is your first resort. Like I said, peoples' opinions derive from assumptions based on their experience. But your life experience is not the same as everyone else's, so therefore you make different assumptions. If you paid more attention to what other people say, you might be able to better appreciate what they say and why.

I have a 16 month old daughter and child development is an area that interests me. A very significant barrier is crossed when a child reaches around the age of 3 and this barrier can tested with the help of a fun game. The game works like this. You introduce the child to a doll and tell them that the doll owns a pencil case containing pencils that are all the same colour (let's say blue). You then say that the doll is going out (to the shops) and take it out of sight. Then another doll is introduced who opens the pencil case, swaps the blue pencils for red pencils, zips it up again and then leaves. The original doll comes back and you ask the child, "What colour pencils does the doll think is in the pencil case?". A child of 2 to 3 will say red because they know that the pencils are now red and assume that the doll must know it too. A child of 3 to 4 will say blue, because they've learned that information is not universal and that although the doll is mistaken, it's not the doll's fault. Sometimes it's hard to believe that you ever crossed that barrier.

Take Mel, for example. If you had paid a little more attention, you would've known that she is a British schoolgirl who is about to sit her GCSE exams. In her comment, she described US healthcare as "a system I'll probably never need to know anything about". Which is true, from her point of view. In replying, you suggested that the only reason she could possibly think this was if her family were super lucky. In other words, you didn't try to imagine why she thought the pencils weren't red. You made a false assumption, based on your own life experience, that she must be an American. Even when she said that she had access to a National Health Service, you made the smallest shift from your own life experience you could by assuming she was Canadian. Thankfully, the confusion was resolved amicably. Often it isn't, because your initial (false) assumption puts people on the defensive, which puts you on the defensive and then the insults start to fly.

Now take dab. In this thread so far, you've called him a dipcrap, compared him to a holocaust denier and suggested that he needs to "start acting like a human being", implying that he presently acts like something other than a human being. And why? Because he's a skeptic.That's all. He's not evil, he's not deluded and he's not stupid. He's just a skeptic.

It is as important to know why someone thinks a certain way as it is to know what they think. In order to find out why someone thinks a certain way about something, you have to ask them. What you can't do is make an assumption about why they think it based on your own personal prejudices and then tell them in no uncertain terms why they're wrong to think that way. Kaleb used to do it to me all the time, accusing me of being a communist and a terrorist sympathiser. Cody used to do it too. I'll admit that I wasn't sure where dab was coming from at first, but the more I've read of his comments the more I think I understand his position.

I've come to the realisation that dab (whether he knows it or not) is an evolutionary epistemologist. Rather than try to explain what that is myself, I'll just copy the relevant bit out of the wiki page:

"One of the hallmarks of evolutionary epistemology is the notion that empirical testing does not justify the truth of scientific theories, but rather that social and methodological processes select those theories with the closest "fit" to a given problem. The mere fact that a theory has survived the most rigorous empirical tests available does not, in the calculus of probability, predict its ability to survive future testing. Karl Popper used Newtonian physics as an example of a body of theories so thoroughly confirmed by testing as to be considered unassailable, but which were nevertheless overturned by Einstein's bold insights into the nature of space-time. For the evolutionary epistemologist, all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived."

If you're in the mood to add more stuff to your Amazon wishlist, I'd recommend "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper. In it, Popper argues that science should adopt a methodology based on falsification, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one.

Don't you see? He's not doubting the quality of the experiments. He's not doubting the scientific consensus. He just realises that any scientific theory is merely the best answer we have right now. Just as we scoff at the apocryphal story of a US Patent Clerk who declared "Everything that can be invented has been invented" in 1899, so will our descendants scoff at some of the things we think are true today.

That's not to demean our level of technological advancement. We have come amazingly far in a very short space of time. It's merely an acknowledgement that we haven't crossed a finish line.

Based on your answers so far, I've made an assumption about you, but I have to check.

Have you ever read any work by Karl Popper?

You're smart.

It wouldn't be a bad thing.

Hopefully it can chase him off. He ruins the ambience of SC.

Very true

No, I've not read anything by Karl Popper. However, I take the following as a given in science.

For the evolutionary epistemologist, all theories are true only provisionally, regardless of the degree of empirical testing they have survived.

The following statement surprises me though.

Popper argues that science should adopt a methodology based on falsification, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one.

I thought that's how science already worked rather than something that science should change to. At least that's how it works in theory. In practice it's still people and all the biases and egos and politics that people bring to anything are as evident in science as anywhere else.

Einstein understood that this was how things were supposed to work in science as I tried to explain once to Brian with the following story. Einstein was in line somewhere when a journalist came up to him and asked him what he thought about the book about to be published titled "100 Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong". He responded, "One. It only takes one." Einstein knew that it would take only a single experiment to prove his theory wrong.

Interestingly, a book I was reading last night (the same book that's currently pictured as my avatar) argued that stellar aberration shows SRT wrong. I didn't follow the math well enough to be sure if the author was making sense or not.

> |> I know for sure I've linked to the Guardian.
>
> Good for you. I read the Guardian every day, although
> I tend not to link to it in order to prove a point
> because, after all, it is just a newspaper and
> all newspapers have an editorial slant. I've created
> forum threads that linked to Guardian articles
> many times (if I happened to think they were interesting),
> but the one and only time I can think of when
> I linked to the Guardian in order to prove a point
> was when Glassa posted a story from the Washington
> Times about Russia being implicated in the smuggling
> of WMD out of Iraq. I posted links to 10 stories
> from 10 different news sites (one of which was
> the Guardian) showing how the same story had been
> reported differently.
>

You should've just told her about how the Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon and is edited by a guy with ties tot the White Citizen's Counicl, an adjunct of the KK (that's Ku Klux Klan, not Korean King of Kings )

> |> I call liars liars. How many times must
> I say it?
>
> You'll keep on having to say it until you start
> doing it or until you refine your definition of
> the word 'lie' until it's more in keeping with
> what everyone else thinks it means. You accused
> me of lying in this very discussion when I'd done
> no such thing. A lie is a false statement, deliberately
> and knowingly presented as being true.

You've said things about me that are untrue, multiple times, and my counter arguemtns are always either ignored or met with a "Yeah but," followed by a repetition of the orginal argument.

> Therefore,
> unless you can prove that the person making the
> statement knew it to be false, you can't accuse
> them of lying.

Then by defintion you can't call anyone a liar, because no one can read minds.

> But you never bother to find that
> out, because accusing the other person of lying
> is your first resort.

Again, only when they actually lie. Do I need to make flash cards?

> Like I said, peoples' opinions
> derive from assumptions based on their experience.
> But your life experience is not the same as everyone
> else's, so therefore you make different assumptions.
> If you paid more attention to what other people
> say, you might be able to better appreciate what
> they say and why.
>
> I have a 16 month old daughter and child development
> is an area that interests me. A very significant
> barrier is crossed when a child reaches around
> the age of 3 and this barrier can tested with
> the help of a fun game. The game works like this.
> You introduce the child to a doll and tell them
> that the doll owns a pencil case containing pencils
> that are all the same colour (let's say blue).
> You then say that the doll is going out (to the
> shops) and take it out of sight. Then another
> doll is introduced who opens the pencil case,
> swaps the blue pencils for red pencils, zips it
> up again and then leaves. The original doll comes
> back and you ask the child, "What colour pencils
> does the doll think is in the pencil case?". A
> child of 2 to 3 will say red because they know
> that the pencils are now red and assume that the
> doll must know it too. A child of 3 to 4 will
> say blue, because they've learned that information
> is not universal and that although the doll is
> mistaken, it's not the doll's fault. Sometimes
> it's hard to believe that you ever crossed that
> barrier.
>
> Take Mel, for example. If you had paid a little
> more attention, you would've known that she is
> a British schoolgirl who is about to sit her GCSE
> exams. In her comment, she described US healthcare
> as "a system I'll probably never need to know
> anything about". Which is true, from her point
> of view. In replying, you suggested that the only
> reason she could possibly think this was if her
> family were super lucky. In other words, you didn't
> try to imagine why she thought the pencils weren't
> red. You made a false assumption, based on your
> own life experience, that she must be an American.
> Even when she said that she had access to a National
> Health Service, you made the smallest shift from
> your own life experience you could by assuming
> she was Canadian. Thankfully, the confusion was
> resolved amicably. Often it isn't, because your
> initial (false) assumption puts people on the
> defensive, which puts you on the defensive and
> then the insults start to fly.

That's because I didn't know Britain had that. I have more Canadain friends then British friends, so I hear about NHS a lot. Also, you skipped over an important detail; how she presented it. The post was presneted in a rather emotioanlly detached way, which reminds me of how Right Wingers often dismiss the Health Care debate. Now obviously I was mistaken, and the whole thing was cleared up quickly (note how she did folks; she wan't sarcastic, and she didn't attack me, she just said "I'm not American, I'm British." So simple). But, given my experience in priror debates of the subject, can you see why I made that assumption?

> Now take dab. In this thread so far, you've called
> him a dipcrap, compared him to a holocaust denier

I compared his argument tactics to that of holocasut deniers. I did nothing more than Michael Shermer in his book Why People Believe Weird Thigns did in his chapter on creationism. I did not say, nor do I believe, that dab is in fact a holocaust denier. In fact, this is a statement I've made before. I simply state that, as holocaust deniers like to use legitmate debate among scholars of that tragedy, the disagreement over the exact number (though every number posited is still over 5 million), to "prove" that the whole thing is bogus, dab does the same thing when it comes to legitmate internal debate about global climate change. He also seems to genuinely beelive that you can tkae the word of a "scientist" who has taken money from the companies that have caused (in part) the problem and that have been caught lying. One "expert" who says that humans aren't cotnributing to global warming has claimed that he is Oregon's state climatoligist, something his Right WIng backers love to use to give him credibility. The problem? No such state office exists in Oregon. Tose are the kind of person dab cites in his "case," people who lie about soemthignt hat can be easily disproved by talking to an actual Oregon politician, and people who take their money from oil companies, adn from the same Right Wing think tank that came up with this bogus "surge tactic in Iraq.

> and suggested that he needs to "start acting like
> a human being", implying that he presently acts
> like something other than a human being. And why?
> Because he's a skeptic.That's all. He's not evil,
> he's not deluded and he's not stupid. He's just
> a skeptic.

Being skeptical is good thing. Saying soemthing that is happening isn't and using people who've been caught lying and tkaing brides as your sources isn't.

> It is as important to know why someone thinks
> a certain way as it is to know what they think.
> In order to find out why someone thinks a certain
> way about something, you have to ask them. What
> you can't do is make an assumption about why they
> think it based on your own personal prejudices
> and then tell them in no uncertain terms why they're
> wrong to think that way. Kaleb used to do it to
> me all the time, accusing me of being a communist
> and a terrorist sympathiser. Cody used to do it
> too. I'll admit that I wasn't sure where dab was
> coming from at first, but the more I've read of
> his comments the more I think I understand his
> position.
>
> I've come to the realisation that dab (whether
> he knows it or not) is an evolutionary epistemologist.
> Rather than try to explain what that is myself,
> I'll just copy the relevant bit out of the wiki
> page:
>
> "One of the hallmarks of evolutionary epistemology
> is the notion that empirical testing does not
> justify the truth of scientific theories, but
> rather that social and methodological processes
> select those theories with the closest "fit" to
> a given problem. The mere fact that a theory has
> survived the most rigorous empirical tests available
> does not, in the calculus of probability, predict
> its ability to survive future testing. Karl Popper
> used Newtonian physics as an example of a body
> of theories so thoroughly confirmed by testing
> as to be considered unassailable, but which were
> nevertheless overturned by Einstein's bold insights
> into the nature of space-time. For the evolutionary
> epistemologist, all theories are true only provisionally,
> regardless of the degree of empirical testing
> they have survived."
>
> If you're in the mood to add more stuff to your
> Amazon wishlist, I'd recommend "The Logic of Scientific
> Discovery" by Karl Popper. In it, Popper argues
> that science should adopt a methodology based
> on falsification, because no number of experiments
> can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment
> can contradict one.
>
> Don't you see? He's not doubting the quality of
> the experiments. He's not doubting the scientific
> consensus. He just realises that any scientific
> theory is merely the best answer we have right
> now. Just as we scoff at the apocryphal story
> of a US Patent Clerk who declared "Everything
> that can be invented has been invented" in 1899,
> so will our descendants scoff at some of the things
> we think are true today.

The problem here is that there may not BE and descendats to scoff at us if people like dab get their way. If we're wrong, we've still made cars more effiicent, developed new and better transportation technology, and generally improved the world. If their wrong, millions will die, millions more will become refugees and Katrina will look like a fudging bike ride.

> That's not to demean our level of technological
> advancement. We have come amazingly far in a very
> short space of time. It's merely an acknowledgement
> that we haven't crossed a finish line.

There is no finish line. It's the journey not the destination, and the journey should never stop. Sometimes you have to back track, but you never stop. Not doing anything about global warming, and letting cronies and liars and the bribed set the policy is, metaphoriclaly speaking of course, doing just that; stopping.

> You'd skirted falling into the name calling with
> me but now you've toppled over the edge. Conversation
> over, you lose.

Conversation over, I win. Again, none of my scientists have taken bribes from companies that cuase the pollution that's causing the global climate change, nor have they taken money from the same kind of "think tnaks" that thoguht the Iraq war was a great idea. Better a jerk than an idiot.

Well, there's my answer. You're just dumb. OK, bye. I'm ignoring you now.

I think the top "dogs" in the AMA are corrupt...put money before life and limb. I think the profit motive should be taken from the medical profession. People have to start becoming in charge of their own health, because you can't put your trust in an organization that puts profit before life....a loss of conscience. Of course, there is a need in other emergency situations, such as repair....but not disease.

I had an experience in 1985, I don't know if I've ever mentioned it. I went to an alternative medical clinic, signed up for two weeks. It was a monitored, fasting clinic. I lasted for 7 days on distilled water only. The only reason I left the clinic early was I didn't come prepared as they told me....I had to bring extra bedding. At the end of the 7 days fasting, I started eating fruits and vegetables slowly. We had prayer meetings almost every day. We had to have adequate sleeping. I left after 11 days, because of my being too cold. I must tell you by fasting that short time, my skin become like a newborn baby's skin, my vision was so much more clear, my internal working of the body was smoother, my hair glistened, literally sparkled. Then within a month because of the social expectations, I began eating wrong again. Junk food is a killer, pure and simple. The additives, the preservatives, hormones...etc...our bodies cannot assimilate.

I would like to see the movie just to see what he has to say....but I have a tendency to believe he is working for the medical association, trying to encourage people to vote for free medical care for all. I won't go for that, because it entrenches the bad medical organization. Also, I feel insurance companies are involved too. The insurance companies are "insurance" for the medical organization.

I have been "forced" to go on Medicare because of my age, as well as, my husband. The Medicare system is a sham...to me a way to pick and choose who dies. I pay over $700 a month on Medicare and my private insurance through my husbands union. Ever since I have had to be on Medicare, I receive less to no benefits...my regular insurance won't pay unless Medicare approves, yet before Medicare, my private company paid. Yet, I'm forced into keeping both. So in essence, I'm throwing out over $500 a month on a policy that can't pay because of Medicare.

Repair is way more expensive that curing diseases. Insurance just doesn't cover the tens of thousands of dollars it costs for someone to get their knees, back, etc fixed. Without universal health coverage, some people have to suffer in pain, broken and with no means to fix themselves.
Ironic thing is that because of pharmaceutical diversion, doctors are reluctant to prescribe painkillers to people who really need it. And then these people have to self-medicate for relief.

Exactly, repair is more expensive momentarily, there is a lot of profit in repair, but there is also in disease. In comes insurance, which I think is a bit of a sham. Think of all the machinery, medications, care it takes for an ill person. It makes me sick thinking about it.

I have an idea, I say have some control over the profit on medicine...very simple. There is no education in the world that warrants $250,000 per surgery. no way. Some people have become greedy at the expense of ill people, it is a sin. I think I mentioned before about my sister working in her father-in-law's pharmacy. She used to sign in the medications, do inventory on the drugs. She said they'd get say for instance 50 pills for pennies, and yet can charge the customer $80 or 90. I don't know the exact figures, but I remember the profit margin was HUGE. My sister said she gasped at the margin. This is not right.

Years ago, I knew a woman, whose husband had cancer. The wife was told, don't give your husband any more medication than prescribed. My friend had to watch her husband writhe in pain because the doctors didn't want to "addict" him. My friend had to watch her husband cry, scream, beat on the cabinets and walls begging her to give some of the pain medication. Now this is evil, pure evil. The doctors won't heal you, yet leave you to die in pain. Disgraceful. My friend's husband passed on, a very young man, left three little children. I have contempt for the hierarchy of the AMA.

I would say attack the source of the high costs so that it becomes more affordable in the first place. Hire more doctors, build more hospitals, and invest more in technology, so the cost would go down. That way the cost of insurance would go down, as so would the out-of-pocket cost for people without it. Thats what both parties should do.

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.

> |> 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.

Oh, please don't ignore me. You're like a god to me.

I don't generally plan to see films. I certainly don't plan to see films that aren't even in the local theaters yet. However, the last film I saw (in a theater) was Fahrenheit 9/11, so who knows?