On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:55 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


How can these Lemmings ignore all the faked science? I just don't get
it, only because they are stuck on ideology?? Must be.. Bunch of good
little Harrys...

"Faked science" is easy to ignore. OTOH, how do you ignore the real
science? ;-)

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:55 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


How can these Lemmings ignore all the faked science? I just don't get
it, only because they are stuck on ideology?? Must be.. Bunch of good
little Harrys...

"Faked science" is easy to ignore. OTOH, how do you ignore the real
science? ;-)

What real science? I am of the school of thought that looks at
a commercial for instance where trick photography or tricky editing
makes a product look good. If they have to trick you to make it look
good I tend to dismiss the product completely. For instance, there is
that annoying guy with the over priced orange towels. He has a part in
the commercial where he pours soda on a piece of carpet then cleans it
all up by pressing the towel into the carpet. If you watch carefully you
see that the clip is cut and a drier carpet is substituted... I won't
buy his towels knowing he is selling snake oil...

On 11/23/09 8:07 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In inet,
says...

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:55 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


How can these Lemmings ignore all the faked science? I just don't get
it, only because they are stuck on ideology?? Must be.. Bunch of good
little Harrys...

"Faked science" is easy to ignore. OTOH, how do you ignore the real
science? ;-)

What real science?


Why are you commenting on *science*? Unlikely you completed high school.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:07:46 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:55 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


How can these Lemmings ignore all the faked science? I just don't get
it, only because they are stuck on ideology?? Must be.. Bunch of good
little Harrys...

"Faked science" is easy to ignore. OTOH, how do you ignore the real
science? ;-)

What real science? I am of the school of thought that looks at
a commercial for instance where trick photography or tricky editing
makes a product look good. If they have to trick you to make it look
good I tend to dismiss the product completely. For instance, there is
that annoying guy with the over priced orange towels. He has a part in
the commercial where he pours soda on a piece of carpet then cleans it
all up by pressing the towel into the carpet. If you watch carefully you
see that the clip is cut and a drier carpet is substituted... I won't
buy his towels knowing he is selling snake oil...

Sounds like a cardboard boat project. Perhaps that is why it is fresh in
your mind.

In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. :)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

On Nov 22, 8:49*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. *:)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

Tom, I've been kicked out of some clubs I started... so, don't feel
alone.
?;^ )

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:27:14 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:49*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. *:)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

Tom, I've been kicked out of some clubs I started... so, don't feel
alone.
?;^ )

Some how, I believe you.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.�

There was 160 MB of data stolen. Obviously, it would take some time to
confirm if it was authentic. Obviously, someone who was willing to break
the law (hacking), and post private information publicly, *might* not be
above changing the data, if they have an agenda.

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.