My Sympathies go out to Scotland.

Originally posted by John D Harris: ... quicker then poop through a goosestepper.

Now that was funny!

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: I think we may have it all wrong Absynthe. I don't think we have grasped that laws are not made to contain the conservatives of the world to the moral norm. If they want to plagarise or start a war it don't have to be legal. Example 1 : There's weapons of mass destruction over there and we can't have them getting into the hands of terrorists. We have to invade. Oh sorry - we betterchange our story. OK world - no WOMD but the people are liberated - long live freedom. Example 2 : Hmm - OJ, there are things in this article that show another classic knobbling by the beurocratic EU. Let's take this article, add a dash of invective, twist this, distort that, now top with a generous sprinkle of obscenity and I have a classic original looking blog for all my like minded friends to wet themselves laughing over. Sorry - the truth got bent outa shape and I palgarised like hell - but my friends still like me and I got a laugh. It looks like almost anything is defendable Absynthe - even in the face of laws and truth. Hmm - iff'n it looks like poop and it smells like poop ima bettin messieur JD itsa gunna be poop.

Nut'n wrong with poop, if'n you know how to turn it into fertilizer, or in this case fuel. But hey, some folks can't get past the smell, that's OK, we all should know our limitations. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: ... quicker then poop through a goosestepper.

Now that was funny! [/QUOTE]Well it's about time, my wrist was getting tired from turning the knob down. "Hale" I went way past WSU level, damn near Auburn or Texas A&M level.

Originally posted by Davros: I think we may have it all wrong Absynthe. I don't think we have grasped that laws are not made to contain the conservatives of the world to the moral norm. If they want to plagarise or start a war it don't have to be legal. Example 1 : There's weapons of mass destruction over there and we can't have them getting into the hands of terrorists. We have to invade. Oh sorry - we betterchange our story. OK world - no WOMD but the people are liberated - long live freedom. Example 2 : Hmm - OJ, there are things in this article that show another classic knobbling by the beurocratic EU. Let's take this article, add a dash of invective, twist this, distort that, now top with a generous sprinkle of obscenity and I have a classic original looking blog for all my like minded friends to wet themselves laughing over. Sorry - the truth got bent outa shape and I palgarised like hell - but my friends still like me and I got a laugh. It looks like almost anything is defendable Absynthe - even in the face of laws and truth. Hmm - iff'n it looks like poop and it smells like poop ima bettin messieur JD itsa gunna be poop.

Example 2 definitely catches the core of my point.
If you want to debate something with integrity and hold your ideas up for scrutiny then you have to maintain transparency by citing your sources. In that way, you offer a bedrock of reasoning upon which you've built your argument, verifiable by anyone.
If you choose to throw out unqualified information with no source or pedigree, you're simply engaging in a rant, and your opinion will be given short shrift by anyone with intellectual integrity interested in an honest debate.

(And yes John, that's 'integrity' twice in one post.)

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Absynthe: Example 2 definitely catches the core of my point. If you want to debate something with integrity and hold your ideas up for scrutiny then you have to maintain transparency by citing your sources. In that way, you offer a bedrock of reasoning upon which you've built your argument, verifiable by anyone. If you choose to throw out unqualified information with no source or pedigree, you're simply engaging in a rant, and your opinion will be given short shrift by anyone with intellectual integrity interested in an honest debate. (And yes John, that's 'integrity' twice in one post.)

Interesting, that would happen to be the kind of integrity that would motivate one to answer questions asked of them by others in a conversation would it? You know to back up a point, used as a bedrock of reasoning upon which one has built their argument.

[Davros]

Or you could just admit your wrong on this occasion JD, and have trapped yourself into defending something beyond the bounds of rationality simply because you started out down that path and you feel you have no alternative but to see it through.

Hmm - that sounds not a whole bit unlike a ceratin dude sitting in the Whitehouse in Washinton - does Iraq ring a bell .

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: Or you could just admit your wrong on this occasion JD, and have trapped yourself into defending something beyond the bounds of rationality simply because you started out down that path and you feel you have no alternative but to see it through. Hmm - that sounds not a whole bit unlike a ceratin dude sitting in the Whitehouse in Washinton - does Iraq ring a bell .

Dav, I have not defended the bloger's position, I have defended the bloger's right to frame his position in the manner he did.

Now you have stated the position that:I "have trapped yourself into defending something beyond the bounds of rationality simply because you started out down that path and you feel you have no alternative but to see it through." On what do you base that? Is it because I defended my position? If that is the case then you are guilty of the same thing, because you have defended your position.
Is there another reason for you to be able to ascertain my motivation? Prehaps you posses the ability to read minds and assign motivation to anothers actions. If that is the case please present the suporting evidence to back up that position? You know, so there will be no guilt of: the choice to "throw out unqualified information with no source or pedigree, you're simply engaging in a rant, and your opinion will be given short shrift by anyone with intellectual integrity interested in an honest debate."

[Stratos]

JD, you always refer to the source of any information you use. A reader has to be able to double check the info. You also make sure that it's very apparent which words are your own, and which are the ones of the person you've quoted or refered to. Anything else is dishonest, lacks any sort of intellectual integrity and is quite frankly pure shit. It's not about money and it's not about patting the shoulder of whomever you refer to.

In light of this kind of "creative" writing, how is someone supposed to trust anything the blogger writes in the future? How do we know he's not taking information out of it's context, or straight out lying?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Stratos: JD, you always refer to the source of any information you use. A reader has to be able to double check the info. You also make sure that it's very apparent which words are your own, and which are the ones of the person you've quoted or refered to. Anything else is dishonest, lacks any sort of intellectual integrity and is quite frankly pure shit. It's not about money and it's not about patting the shoulder of whomever you refer to. In light of this kind of "creative" writing, how is someone supposed to trust anything the blogger writes in the future? How do we know he's not taking information out of it's context, or straight out lying?

Thank you Stratos, I try but, to be honest I'm human and prone to errors.
Two very good questions! I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.

If it is subject that matters to somebody, I would suggest researching it for themselves. Double check what the blogger has writen with their own research. Do the facts concur or do are they in conflict? *not an actual question asked of anybody. If the facts, for the most part, concur then you know how much trust can be applied to the blogger. If the facts, for the most part, conflict then you know how how little trust can be applied to the blogger. Also one should try to seperate the facts from opinion, in the Bloggers statement.

Personally I don't care what Scotland or the EU do with their dried Poop. I'm not a citizen of either one. Do I think it is silly to burn poop pellets and not make electricity if you have the ability to do so. But that is an opinion, with it and $1.50 you can buy a bad cup of coffee.

[Davros]

I will try to break it down even simpler for you JD [img]smile.gif[/img] .
.
Fundamentally, the act of pinching something that someone wrote, then putting in a few distortions to focus on the areas you want to target, adding a healthy dash of obscenity then calling it your own blog and taking credit for it is repugnant. The only originality the blogger is showing is the ability to distort and use pottymouth. I don't respect the sort of person that does that and find it difficult to understand the person that defends it. This blogger demonstrates the abilities to steal and deride - nil creativity - nil morality - nil integrity. End result universally should be nil respect. It shouldn't be that some people respect the actions because they make a political agenda statement that they like.

You are either for basic morality and integrity or you don't give a toss. Which camp are you in JD?