Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11782)	2/6/2009 7:30:43 AM
From: Poet	Respond to of 33421

Jorj, neither Tim nor I were discussing you personally. We were talking about a general tendency toward water-muddying in discussions. I've known you for over a decade as a clear thinker-- with whom I've disagreed from time to time.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11782)	2/6/2009 11:14:47 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 33421

My point wasn't so much about Gore or global warming I have my opinions on both, but I didn't really want to get in to them here. I suspect people might not care much, but if anyone wants to know, search my posts on SI, or PM me and ask, or post to me on a more political thread where I am active. Also my comment wasn't directed at you, it was very general, and to the extent it referred to some specific examples it was the examples of my past experience. I'm not saying you are engaging in ad-hominem or shutting your mind, just that I've encountered a lot of people who have. If I gave the impression that I was attacking you for doing these things, I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. ---- by the way, isn't this: "While all are stories that include facts, each of these sources are either so politically biased or lacking in professional journalistic standards that they have very little credibility, IMO." an example of someone dismissing admitted facts because they didn't like the messenger? Looks like it could be, but the context might make it clearer, also the "dismissing admitted facts" part of your statement confuses me a bit. If they admitted them I don't think they would dismiss them. Maybe the person who said or wrote that is using "facts" for "claims of fact", or maybe he or she is admitting that there are some solid facts in the stories, but not accepting all of the claims of fact as actual facts. I'm not sure I want to analyze it more than that, esp. in a public post. I don't think most people here would be interested in the analysis, and to the extent this is part of some old fight I might not want to get in the middle of it.