Kerry's "Space Policy"

"Christopher M. Jones" writes:

I'm not sure what your point is here. If you're
attempting to convert George to anti-Saddamism then I'm
afraid you are much too late. If you're attempting to
convert George to an ethic which allows one to look
past the truth when it's inconvenient then I think you
likely have better ways to waste your time. George is
from that wonderful little cadre of folks who have
that whatchacallit thing, umm, integrity, who believe
that positions are held due to the facts, rather than
in spite of them, and who take great pains to make their
arguments as complete and robust as possible. Would
that more were like him.

This sounds like you're saying that since I disagree with your
interpretation of the facts that I must therefore be lying and/or
have no personal integrity.

--
Phil Fraering
Warning: I am very behind on usenet; if you really want me to
see a message, cc: me a copy. - pgf

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 04:27:40 +0100, in a place far, far away, "John
Thingstad" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

BBC World is, I belive, such a trusted source.

Not to me. Not after the Gilligan affair. They've become
anti-American shills. If that's your only news source, you're
desperately misinformed, and only getting one side of the story.

I never had the feeling that BBC was anti-American.
They certainly have opinions. But they seem to vary from subject to
subject.
After all, England is USA's closest alie in Europe.

So? American networks are almost as bad (e.g., NPR, CBS)

Besides I also watch Norwegian newscasts and read a Norwegian paper.

As I said, you're getting a very restricted view of what's going on.
You obviously have an internet connection.

Look at the web, including blogs. Start with Instapundit.

None of my posts have been posted to moderated groups since September
3. None. Why is that? It was on topic, reflected deep knowledge,
and non-controversial in any way.

By the way, I responded to this in moderated groups in a little more
detail, and the moderators decided not to post it. Why? Clearly the
response is reasonable.

The moderators of sci.space.* are going out of their way to cause me
problems and wrongly deny me access to posting in moderated groups.
Because I'm a Kerry supporter and they are not? Or ar there other
reasons?

They have even denied me the right to post things, and I later see the
very same ideas and concept posted by them as if it were theirs. THEY
SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THEIR ROLE AS MODERATORS, OR CORRECT THE
SITUATION AND APOLOGIZE.

Thanks.

william mook ) wrote:
: None of my posts have been posted to moderated groups since September
: 3. None. Why is that? It was on topic, reflected deep knowledge,
: and non-controversial in any way.

: By the way, I responded to this in moderated groups in a little more
: detail, and the moderators decided not to post it. Why? Clearly the
: response is reasonable.

: The moderators of sci.space.* are going out of their way to cause me
: problems and wrongly deny me access to posting in moderated groups.
: Because I'm a Kerry supporter and they are not? Or ar there other
: reasons?

I wouldn't sweat it. Moderators tend to be like little dictators (no
offense, George) that basically hold popularity contests to a small
degree. IF you're above the line you get posted. If below the line you
don't. Moderation is both good and bad.

: They have even denied me the right to post things, and I later see the
: very same ideas and concept posted by them as if it were theirs. THEY
: SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THEIR ROLE AS MODERATORS, OR CORRECT THE
: SITUATION AND APOLOGIZE.

I'd find a different forum for my ideas. Weblog?

Eric

: Thanks.

Eric Chomko wrote:
william mook ) wrote:
: None of my posts have been posted to moderated groups since September
: [...]

I wouldn't sweat it. Moderators tend to be like little dictators (no
offense, George)

I am not the moderator(s) William is referring to.
This is a problem between him and the sci.space.moderated
moderators (which I technically belong to, but I have
not ever actively participated in... I get copies of the
administrative mail and am oked to approve crossposts,
but have not had the time to get involved in the
robomod management).

I have been approving the few posts that have come through
from him in .tech and .science .

I don't have enough information to get involved in a
useful way in this dispute, in terms of whether the
moderation policy in .moderated is being applied
consistently and fairly, and even if I did I think
I wouldn't want to.


-george william herbert

Phil Fraering wrote:
This sounds like you're saying that since I disagree with your
interpretation of the facts that I must therefore be lying and/or
have no personal integrity.

Not at all. I'm saying that it's important not to
let individual facts and alternative explanations
become subsumed by some sort of "greater truth".
If the truth is inconvenient to your argument then
you either need better arguments or different
positions, not different truth. I find that the
strongest arguments are those which acknowledge
and accept inconvenience and imperfection.

"Christopher M. Jones" writes:

Not at all. I'm saying that it's important not to
let individual facts and alternative explanations
become subsumed by some sort of "greater truth".
If the truth is inconvenient to your argument then
you either need better arguments or different
positions, not different truth. I find that the
strongest arguments are those which acknowledge
and accept inconvenience and imperfection.

I'm not arguing for a "greater truth," merely that
approaching each "fact" (sarin shells, which I think
I've discussed with you before... cruise missiles and
longer-than-permitted range ballistic missiles, which
would be useless in the quantities built with conventional
warheads... large-scale truck traffic to Syria in the days
before the war...) without the context of the fact that
there were multi-year periods when the inspectors could
not enforce _anything_, and were only let in again while
US forces were on the Kuwaiti border perparing to invade...
and the mass graves, and his stated intentions (see the
rocket mural), is, IMHO, likely to prove inaccurate.

And a truce that is only adhered to as long as your troops
are on the verge of invading the country is a truce in
name only.

pgf

--
Phil Fraering
Warning: I am very behind on usenet; if you really want me to
see a message, cc: me a copy. - pgf

George has been great - I wasn't referring to him specifically. He's
been a light in a sea of darkness!