Search the Community

OK, last time and I'm done. Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want. Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review? Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

So why the term 'distant sister'. According to that explanation she was his full sister sharing both parents. I agree with Kallend here - the 'distant' part is just meaningless wordplay to fool the reader into thinking its slightly less incestuous. The term was "distant sisters" I think they're talking of sisters of both Cain and Abel intermarrying. Intermarrying with whom? Maybe Cain fathered a daughter by Eve, and then married her (thereby becoming his own father- in-law and grandfather to his son, which makes him his own father, and his own son, and .....). Either that, or it's his full sister and "distant" is just more weasel wording. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Commandment # 1: There is only one God. The only other gods you speak of are the ones people make up for themselves. Where did Cain's wife come from? Oh, very droll! What is a "distant sister"? How does sin affect genetics? Who were the people who might slay Cain when he'd left Eden and gone to the land of Nod? Why did Cain need to build a city if just three people were living there? What were the other things in heaven above that the Israelites were not allowed to make images (Exodus 20:4). Certainly not angels, since they put angels on the ark (Ex. 25) and tabernacle (26). Other gods, maybe? The only way the contradictions can be explained is by weasel words. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Weasel-word games are all you will ever get. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive and that's that. Contorted explanations as to why the contradictions in the Bible are not contradictions are par for the course. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

No....I think you are...... Not even Bush or Rumsfeld make these claims any more. You are in a dwindling, tiny minority who still believe. Don't put words in my mouth. The only claim I made is that the mustard gas isn't as harmless as portrayed by some here. I also said these weapons were made pre-Gulf War I. What part of that did you fail to grasp? Do you agree or disagree that the mustard gas found in Iraq is as harmless as the chemicals under my kitchen sink? Don't be a weasel . What you wrote previously was "It also refutes some of the "experts" we have here on DZ.Com who claimed the chemical weapons found in Iraq were so old they were usless." Now, usless(sic) as a weapon, and harmless, are two very different things. I can think of lots of harmful things that are not weapons of mass destruction. Exactly what I said and it does refute the claim that old munnitions with mustard gas are useless. What article are you reading? Are you claiming "useless" or "harmless"? You switch between them as if they mean the same thing. Try to be consistent and precise if you want a debate. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

No....I think you are...... Not even Bush or Rumsfeld make these claims any more. You are in a dwindling, tiny minority who still believe. Don't put words in my mouth. The only claim I made is that the mustard gas isn't as harmless as portrayed by some here. I also said these weapons were made pre-Gulf War I. What part of that did you fail to grasp? Do you agree or disagree that the mustard gas found in Iraq is as harmless as the chemicals under my kitchen sink? Don't be a weasel . What you wrote previously was "It also refutes some of the "experts" we have here on DZ.Com who claimed the chemical weapons found in Iraq were so old they were usless." Now, usless(sic) as a weapon, and harmless, are two very different things. I can think of lots of harmful things that are not weapons of mass destruction. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

I did but it was so weasel-worded I thought I'd ask directly. Didn't answer my question, did you? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Do you think that people don't notice the way you always weasel around and refuse to answer simple, direct questions? Your comments are worthless, since you refuse to just come right out and say what you mean. That seems pretty close to a personal attack. Our current situation grew out of our past actions. You should be able to see that without my having to write an essay about it. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

I don't criticize Reagan for supporting Iraq. I criticize the hypocrites who complain about what Saddham did while we were supporting him, and who complain about weapons he had that we helped him obtain. I do criticize Reagan for Iran-Contra, and his weasel like speech justifying it after the news leaked out. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Probably so. I deal with PhDs all the time. Some are pretty cool and up on things, but most are pretty eccentric and anal. Not a personal attack on John, just an observation. Well read doesn't follow that one is well rounded or correct. First it's debate by name-calling, now it's guilt by association. To save you time and trouble, here's a list of other poor debating tactics you might use: ad hominem -- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g. The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously); argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia -- but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President; a mistake, as it turned out); argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous – perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives); appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion -- to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.) begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors -- but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of "adjustment" and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?); observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers); statistics of small numbers -- a close relative of observational selection (e.g., "They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly." Or: "I've thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can't lose."); misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence); inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they're not "proved". Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past); non sequitur -- Latin for "It doesn't follow" (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the Germans formulation was "Gott mit uns"). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities; post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by" (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: "I know of ... a 26-year old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills." Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons); meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa); excluded middle, or false dichotomy -- considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., "Sure, take her side; my husband's perfect; I'm always wrong." Or: "Either you love your country or you hate it." Or: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"); short-term vs. long-term -- a subset of the excluding middle, but so important I've pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can't afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?); slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first week of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception); confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore -- despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter -- the latter causes the former); straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance -- a formulation that wilfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy -- environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people); suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted "prophecy" of the assassination attempt on President Regan is shown on television; but – an important detail -- was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?); weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration of Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else -- "police actions," "armed incursions," "protective reaction strikes," "pacification," "safeguarding American interests," and a wide variety of "operations," such as "Operation Just Cause." Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"). (c) Carl Sagan ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

And they still can. The states can still create legal bindings for same sex couples if they like. He is proposing that it can't be called a "marrage" The proposal is defining a word...I think its stupid, but then again most of the nation does not think gays should be allowed to be "Married". BTW Kerry opposes gay marrage as well. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/elec04.prez.dems.gay.marriage/ And thats the same thing Bush is saying. Ya got me..I guess we should just pack up and leave IRAQ like it is..Of course then we will have to go back in a few years. Oh, but we DID fight and win a war. On this all you have shown is he THOUGHT there were WMD's...You still have shown no PROOF he KNEW there were none. But that doe snot keep you from lying and saying he lied. Has he lied? Yep I am sure he has. Did he lie about WMD's in IRAQ..You can't prove he did. Spin spin spin. They're weasel words, Ron. Bill just gave a sample of Bush's untruths. He has made any number of statements that are totally at variance with his subsequent actions, on economics, veterans' affairs, education, gay rights, and of course, Iraq. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

This college professor knows who declared war on whom in December 1941. Apparently you don't. It says FDR led us into war. It says Germany never attacked us. It does not say Germany didn't declare war on us before out declaration of war. Weasel wording. Japan declared war on the USA. Germany declared war on the USA. Just the facts. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

This is called "Observational Selection". From Carl Sagan's Balony Detection Kit: (See how many others of these have been committed in this discussion) __________________ Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. Argument from "authority". Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). Confusion of correlation and causation. Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.. Suppressed evidence or half-truths. Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Misunderstandings about the exact nature of lift are, well, understandable. I blame Wolfgang Langewiesche. The little weasel said "Newton" in 1944 and ever since then the Bernoulli v. Newton debate has raged when in fact neither is a completely adequate model of lift. I disagree . I think both are correct, in so far as they go, especially when you consider that neither Bernoulli (any of them) nor Newton ever actually addressed the topic of lift anyway. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.