|
Wow...just...wow!
You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of
the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:17:46 -0400, Keyser Sze
wrote: Thats a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). === Wow indeed. So it turns out your asshat behavior is the fault of the genes your parents gave you. Nice cop out. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:17:46 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, youll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/24/2015 1:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr Sounds like a bunch of academics having a circle jerk. I wonder what federal grant paid for this "study". |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:03:03 -0400, John H.
wrote: Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? === You've certainly touched on a lot of it but let's not forget the (at least) two bankruptcies. Harry has never uttered one peep about those incidents which is unusual. I'd have expected a lot of defensive lying and posturing. Possibly there's still some litigation involved which could explain his unnatural reticence. I'll have to get to work on that angle. There's also plenty of reason to think that there has been some fraud in his life, possibly on the loan applications which went bad, and almost certainly with regard to concealment of assets and fraudulent conveyance thereof. Anyone else care to contribute to the "Open Peer Commentary"? |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/24/2015 2:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:17:46 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, youll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? I agree with you wholeheartedly. Harry got to be an asshat all on his own, without being influenced by his republican mother. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/24/15 2:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/24/2015 1:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr Sounds like a bunch of academics having a circle jerk. I wonder what federal grant paid for this "study". Maybe, but on the other hand, it sure typifies some of our rec.boats conservatives... "In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology." If the foo ****s... :) -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/24/2015 4:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/24/15 2:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/24/2015 1:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr Sounds like a bunch of academics having a circle jerk. I wonder what federal grant paid for this "study". Maybe, but on the other hand, it sure typifies some of our rec.boats conservatives... "In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology." If the foo ****s... :) That really is a stretch of an interpretation even if you give the study any credibility. Sorta like: All Hong Kong people are brave. All brave people are highly-educated. Therefore, all highly-educated people live in Hong Kong! |
Wow...just...wow!
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/24/2015 4:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/24/15 2:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/24/2015 1:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr Sounds like a bunch of academics having a circle jerk. I wonder what federal grant paid for this "study". Maybe, but on the other hand, it sure typifies some of our rec.boats conservatives... "In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology." If the foo ****s... :) That really is a stretch of an interpretation even if you give the study any credibility. Sorta like: All Hong Kong people are brave. All brave people are highly-educated. Therefore, all highly-educated people live in Hong Kong! As I said it describes a bunch of rec.boats posters. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:12:20 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:03:03 -0400, John H. wrote: Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? === You've certainly touched on a lot of it but let's not forget the (at least) two bankruptcies. Harry has never uttered one peep about those incidents which is unusual. I'd have expected a lot of defensive lying and posturing. Possibly there's still some litigation involved which could explain his unnatural reticence. I'll have to get to work on that angle. There's also plenty of reason to think that there has been some fraud in his life, possibly on the loan applications which went bad, and almost certainly with regard to concealment of assets and fraudulent conveyance thereof. Anyone else care to contribute to the "Open Peer Commentary"? This open peer commentary is a good thing. Thanks, Harry, for bringing it to our attention. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/24/2015 5:50 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/24/2015 4:37 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/24/15 2:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/24/2015 1:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: You could be forgiven for not having browsed through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you’ll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called “Open Peer Commentary”: An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology and even traits like physiology and genetics. That’s a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics — upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway). It is a “virtually inescapable conclusion” that the “cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different.” The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of “a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” as one of their papers put it). In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology. Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what’s truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, “22 or 23 accept the general idea” of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of “modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work,” and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely. That’s pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that… For much mo http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr Sounds like a bunch of academics having a circle jerk. I wonder what federal grant paid for this "study". Maybe, but on the other hand, it sure typifies some of our rec.boats conservatives... "In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets — centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns — would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology." If the foo ****s... :) That really is a stretch of an interpretation even if you give the study any credibility. Sorta like: All Hong Kong people are brave. All brave people are highly-educated. Therefore, all highly-educated people live in Hong Kong! As I said it describes a bunch of rec.boats posters. You really don't make any sense Krause turd. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:03:03 -0400, John H. wrote: Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? === You've certainly touched on a lot of it but let's not forget the (at least) two bankruptcies. Harry has never uttered one peep about those incidents which is unusual. I'd have expected a lot of defensive lying and posturing. Possibly there's still some litigation involved which could explain his unnatural reticence. I'll have to get to work on that angle. There's also plenty of reason to think that there has been some fraud in his life, possibly on the loan applications which went bad, and almost certainly with regard to concealment of assets and fraudulent conveyance thereof. Anyone else care to contribute to the "Open Peer Commentary"? House is in his wife's name so there is certainly some truth to that. Fraud? He worked for Ullico - enough said. He will ignore this post and not chance calling in his dip**** friend in Canada to run interference for him. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Keyser Sze wrote:
horse**** snipped http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr -- Proud to be a Liberal. Pay attention Krause The same can be said of a lot of liberal ideas. Mindlessly following democrat ideologues, feeling with your heart and not logically thinking through the consequences of your actions, shouting down conservatives, name-calling, stereotyping, demonizing, etc. Look at the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy movements. Both were reactions to the economic collapse, and both attracted loonies that made their side look awful. Yet the Tea Party is still coherent and a potent force in politics today, for better or worse. That being said, I have several liberal/progressive friends and I know they're not all like what I said in the preceding paragraph. I enjoy talking with liberals and progressives when (unlike Krause and JPS) they don't shout or make personal attacks. Talking with people whose opinions differ from mine makes me question the things I believe, and I have changed my mind on some issues. Maybe you should too? |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:13:09 -0400, Someone wrote:
Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:03:03 -0400, John H. wrote: Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called Open Peer Commentary: So let's do a bit of open peer commentary. I think you're a self-serving, lying, tax-cheating narcissist. I guess that makes me an ingrained racist, eh? I wonder what other comments your peers here would say openly? === You've certainly touched on a lot of it but let's not forget the (at least) two bankruptcies. Harry has never uttered one peep about those incidents which is unusual. I'd have expected a lot of defensive lying and posturing. Possibly there's still some litigation involved which could explain his unnatural reticence. I'll have to get to work on that angle. There's also plenty of reason to think that there has been some fraud in his life, possibly on the loan applications which went bad, and almost certainly with regard to concealment of assets and fraudulent conveyance thereof. Anyone else care to contribute to the "Open Peer Commentary"? House is in his wife's name so there is certainly some truth to that. Fraud? He worked for Ullico - enough said. He will ignore this post and not chance calling in his dip**** friend in Canada to run interference for him. I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:01:57 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 10:17:49 AM UTC-7, Keyser Sze wrote: horse**** snipped http://tinyurl.com/lprnuyr -- Proud to be a Liberal. Pay attention Krause The same can be said of a lot of liberal ideas. Mindlessly following democrat ideologues, feeling with your heart and not logically thinking through the consequences of your actions, shouting down conservatives, name-calling, stereotyping, demonizing, etc. Look at the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy movements. Both were reactions to the economic collapse, and both attracted loonies that made their side look awful. Yet the Tea Party is still coherent and a potent force in politics today, for better or worse. That being said, I have several liberal/progressive friends and I know they're not all like what I said in the preceding paragraph. I enjoy talking with liberals and progressives when (unlike Krause and JPS) they don't shout or make personal attacks. Talking with people whose opinions differ from mine makes me question the things I believe, and I have changed my mind on some issues. Maybe you should too? A fine example of an 'Open Peer Commentary'. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote:
The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:57:09 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. That's true. Finally, you got something right. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 04:32:13 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. You, who calls names with damn near every post, have become a behavior critic? What a laugh! What's 'childish' about Harry's 'Open Peer Commentary'? You don't think he should have posted about it? -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/25/2015 7:32 AM, True North wrote:
The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. Partaking with your BFF Krause the ________________. You fill in the blank, moron. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote:
On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! **** for brains FlaJim has concocted yet another fantasy. No wonder he's a permanent bozo bin resident. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-4, Keyser Sze wrote:
Wow! **** for brains FlaJim has concocted yet another fantasy. No wonder he's a permanent bozo bin resident. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ Yet YOU...just read his post. Pahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
Wow...just...wow!
On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
John H. wrote:
On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) Childish of you to "fix" the posts of others. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow...just...wow!
On 25 Mar 2015 15:33:53 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote:
John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) Childish of you to "fix" the posts of others. Childish of you to lie about others. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
John H. wrote:
On 25 Mar 2015 15:33:53 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) Childish of you to "fix" the posts of others. Childish of you to lie about others. Oh? You weren't forced out of the army? -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Wow...just...wow!
On 3/25/2015 12:00 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:33:53 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) Childish of you to "fix" the posts of others. Childish of you to lie about others. Oh? You weren't forced out of the army? Oh? You weren't forced out of your bungalow in Jacksonville? -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Wow...just...wow!
On 25 Mar 2015 16:00:59 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote:
John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:33:53 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote: John H. wrote: On 25 Mar 2015 15:06:36 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:47:12 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 9:21 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:04:48 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote: On 3/25/2015 7:57 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 3/25/15 7:32 AM, True North wrote: The JohnnyMop flushed his head....once more "I'm surprised Don hasn't jumped in to make some Open Peer Commentaries about his buddy, Krause." I'm surprised a man who supposedly reached the rank of Lt Colonel in the United States Army would constantly partake in this childish behaviour. He was forced out of the army. Prove it, scumbag liar. Oh, that's common knowledge. I mentioned that quite a while back. Trust me, I'm sure as hell not ashamed! It was one of the 'benefits' of the Berlin Wall crashing down. I didn't know that. I suppose a forced retirement with benefits and pension is a tad better than a bankster sending a cop to Harry's house to kick him to the curb. No wonder he hates bankers and cops. It's a lot bigger deal to Harry then it is to me. Wow! That remarkably astute FlaJim has foreseen another grave eventuality. No wonder he's a permanent resident of the Bozo's Bin. (fixed) Childish of you to "fix" the posts of others. Childish of you to lie about others. Oh? You weren't forced out of the army? Go back and read your posts, Krause. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Wow...just...wow!
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 1:04:33 PM UTC-4, Justan Olphart wrote:
Oh? You weren't forced out of your bungalow in Jacksonville? " He wont answer that due to its being true. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com