EPO and Hobby Cyclists

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Fred, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest



  2. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the

    tactic
    > > of people who don't know what they're talking about.

    >
    > I'd suggest that most people who provide cites do so for the purpose of
    > providing further edification on the subject at hand and, furthermore, to
    > allow the public at large who may be reading these posts to understand

    that
    > the poster has done some homework. In other words, to suggest that they

    are
    > not plucking their 'facts' from the ether (or their nether region).
    >
    > Just saying...
    >
    > > That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
    > > arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa

    Rice
    > > acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
    > > that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she

    did
    > > a recorded talk on that very subject.
    > >
    > > Just recently we see Bob Woodward write a book claiming that Colin

    Powell (a
    > > man of rather towering intellect) was "out of the loop" and "not aware

    of
    > > the war plans in Iraq" only for General Powell to claim that entirely
    > > inaccurate.

    >
    > So politicians never lie, especially when it suits them? Heh...


    So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which has
    been widely played on radio and television, you are willing to tell us that
    she is lying, and I am making it up and not some guy who stands to make
    about a million dollars on his book if he can generate enough sales through
    controversy?

    And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying about his
    knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
    in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.

    I think that you have proven my point about the mental aberations of your
    end of the political spectrum.
     
  3. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    > > number of times, recently I've written something and people have

    demanded
    > > citations for things that could be varified in seconds using Google or
    > > Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
    > >
    > > That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
    > > arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa

    Rice
    > > acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was

    >
    > Talking of Dr Rice...
    > "Rice's selection of sources raises questions, since he [sic] frequently
    > does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from
    > disinformation or misinformation. He passes judgments and expresses
    > opinions without adequate knowledge of facts."
    > Review in American Historical Review (1985)
    > http://www.counterpunch.org/kalvoda04202004.html


    So, Stewart, you find a "review" such as this informative despite the fact
    that they don't even know that Condoleezza Rice is a woman? And despite the
    fact that this appears to be from 20 years ago?
     
  4. Tom Kunich wrote:

    > So, Stewart, you find a "review" such as this informative despite the fact
    > that they don't even know that Condoleezza Rice is a woman? And despite the
    > fact that this appears to be from 20 years ago?


    As an academic, I'm often expected to conduct blind review of papers.
    Are you saying that the reviews that I write are invalid because I don't
    know the gender, race or identity of the author?

    [Amusing to note that the original author of that review is hoist on his
    own petard though, not checking out the background details and relying
    on some secondary source :)]

    The fact that it's from 20 years ago, well passage of time I can do
    nothing about. Verdict of history doesn't matter anyway. We'll all be
    dead.
     
  5. Tom Kunich wrote:


    > And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying

    about his
    > knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    > extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
    > in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    > Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.


    Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    ordered to do so?
     
  6. Gunny Bunny

    Gunny Bunny Guest

    "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >
    > > And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying

    > about his
    > > knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    > > extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has

    lied
    > > in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    > > Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.

    >
    > Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    > that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    > ordered to do so?


    Some times the truth is so important, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
    of lies....Winston Churchill
     
  7. Gunny Bunny wrote:


    > Some times the truth is so important, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
    > of lies....Winston Churchill


    I'll see your (slightly incorrect) Winston Churchill and raise you a
    William Cohen (Feb 19, 2002):

    "WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, it could backfire. You
    may recall that Winston Churchill, back during World War II, said in a
    time of war, the truth may be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies. Well,
    that was then and this is now. And we are in a different kind of war. We
    are in a long-term war. And the danger is that if the Pentagon were to
    try to engage in any sort of sustained deception to foreign media, which
    as was pointed out, could blow back and affect our own media, it would
    be a big mistake."
     
  8. In article <[email protected]>,
    Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >Gunny Bunny wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Some times the truth is so important, it must be surrounded by a bodyguard
    >> of lies....Winston Churchill

    >
    >I'll see your (slightly incorrect) Winston Churchill and raise you a
    >William Cohen (Feb 19, 2002):
    >
    >"WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, it could backfire. You
    >may recall that Winston Churchill, back during World War II, said in a
    >time of war, the truth may be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies. Well,
    >that was then and this is now. And we are in a different kind of war. We
    >are in a long-term war. And the danger is that if the Pentagon were to
    >try to engage in any sort of sustained deception to foreign media, which
    >as was pointed out, could blow back and affect our own media, it would
    >be a big mistake."


    What a relief to learn that the government doesn't lie anymore!
    It's almost enough to make a person want to vote. :)
     
  9. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Tom Kunich wrote:
    >>
    >>> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the
    >>> tactic of people who don't know what they're talking about.

    >>
    >>> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the
    >>> political arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that
    >>> Condoleesa Rice acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The
    >>> only trouble here was that a year before her supposed ignorance of a
    >>> major terrorist group she did a recorded talk on that very subject.


    and

    > So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which
    > has been widely played on radio and television,


    Well, since you're reluctant to provide citations, I'll provide these:
    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032504.shtml (the last item on the page)
    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh033104.shtml (the 2nd item on the page)

    I don't know if Rice was familiar with the term "Al Qaeda" prior to
    January 2001 or not, but since you've done the googling that you say
    you've done, and since you obviously couldn't be referring to the WJR
    radio interview, please provide a citation to the recorded talk that you
    meant. I can't find it.
     
  10. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which has
    > been widely played on radio and television, you are willing to tell us that
    > she is lying, and I am making it up and not some guy who stands to make
    > about a million dollars on his book if he can generate enough sales through
    > controversy?


    Tom, if this speech was so widely played, then why do I find it so hard
    to get a reference to it? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me towards
    one - I am interested. Really. Because what I recall and what seems to
    consistently come up in searches is that the public record shows that
    between January 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, Rice made no references to
    al Qaeda, and that her mentions of terrorism in speeches were limited to
    talk that focused on state-run terror. Not freelance terrorists like bin
    Laden. In the time leading up to her selection as NSA, her talks and
    writing seemed to focus on her area of expertise, which is Cold War related.

    By the way, did you know that she was to give a talk on September 11,
    2001? No mention of terrorism in that one - it was to be another try at
    selling the missile defence system.

    > And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying about his
    > knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    > extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has lied
    > in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    > Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.


    Powell is doing what he considers to be his duty, Tom. If you remember,
    he was always reluctant to go on with Iraq when he considered Afghanistan
    to be only partially done. He has said in the media in this last week that
    he only recalls having two conversations with Bob Woodward, but Woodward
    has tapes of six interviews with him, and phone logs to back it up. Anyway,
    it appears that it wasn't so much Powell being "out of the loop" by his own
    doing - he was LEFT out of the loop because Bush had decided to go into
    Iraq long before he was done with the public attempts at "diplomacy". And
    Bush went to Cheney, Rummy and Rice to get the ball rolling on that plan
    first because they wanted to do it, too, unlike Powell.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  11. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Nev Shea wrote:
    > >
    > > PS -- thanks Robert, for posting links to the PIPA report a while back

    >
    > Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
    > that report is scary.


    It sure doesn't put a very flattering light on an awful lot of people,
    does it?

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  12. JP

    JP Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "h squared" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > leaving the subject itself behind, isn't it somewhat amusing that the
    > > person who wrote that post would bust ("Thank you please play again.")
    > > on carl for not providing research cites in his reply? perhaps instead
    > > he should have provided his own supporting evidence?

    >
    > Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the tactic
    > of people who don't know what they're talking about. There have been any
    > number of times, recently I've written something and people have demanded
    > citations for things that could be varified in seconds using Google or
    > Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
    >
    > That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
    > arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
    > acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
    > that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she did
    > a recorded talk on that very subject.


    So far, everything I seen about that references Bin Laden. Clarke said
    she *acted as if* she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda; the shills say, "she
    mentioned Bin Laden in this speech", ergo, she had obviously heard of
    Al Qaeda.

    What's wrong with this syllogism? Anyone? Anyone?

    Of course, even if she could be shown to "have heard of Al Qaeda" that
    doesn't prove that the look on her face didn't make it seem like she
    had never heard of them. It's pretty hard to prove a statement of
    opinion, which is what it is (essentially) when the form "acted as if"
    is used.

    Maybe she acted as if she had never heard of Al Qaeda because she was
    completely clueless about what to do about them.

    JP
     
  13. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > > And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying
    > > about his
    > > knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    > > extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has

    lied
    > > in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    > > Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.

    >
    > Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    > that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    > ordered to do so?


    I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
    can say.
     
  14. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the
    > >>> tactic of people who don't know what they're talking about.
    > >>
    > >>> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the
    > >>> political arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that
    > >>> Condoleesa Rice acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The
    > >>> only trouble here was that a year before her supposed ignorance of a
    > >>> major terrorist group she did a recorded talk on that very subject.

    >
    > and
    >
    > > So despite the fact that Condoleesa Rice's talk, the recording of which
    > > has been widely played on radio and television,

    >
    > Well, since you're reluctant to provide citations, I'll provide these:
    > http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032504.shtml (the last item on the page)
    > http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh033104.shtml (the 2nd item on the page)
    >
    > I don't know if Rice was familiar with the term "Al Qaeda" prior to
    > January 2001 or not, but since you've done the googling that you say
    > you've done, and since you obviously couldn't be referring to the WJR
    > radio interview, please provide a citation to the recorded talk that you
    > meant. I can't find it.


    Somersby has access to Lexis-Nexus, as do more than a few others, and
    there are no hits on this via L-N by anyone that I've seen.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  15. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (JP) wrote:

    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...


    > > That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the political
    > > arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa Rice
    > > acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble here was
    > > that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major terrorist group she
    > > did a recorded talk on that very subject.

    >
    > So far, everything I seen about that references Bin Laden. Clarke said
    > she *acted as if* she hadn't heard of Al Qaeda; the shills say, "she
    > mentioned Bin Laden in this speech", ergo, she had obviously heard of
    > Al Qaeda.
    >
    > What's wrong with this syllogism? Anyone? Anyone?
    >
    > Of course, even if she could be shown to "have heard of Al Qaeda" that
    > doesn't prove that the look on her face didn't make it seem like she
    > had never heard of them. It's pretty hard to prove a statement of
    > opinion, which is what it is (essentially) when the form "acted as if"
    > is used.


    Exactly. If you read Clarke's comment in context, you'll see that's
    precisely what he meant. The implication of what he said is that al Qaeda
    didn't register on their radar screen because they were more focused on
    other things, like missile defence or state sponsored terrorism.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  16. Tom Kunich wrote:

    > "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Tom Kunich wrote:
    >>
    >>>And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying
    >>>about his
    >>>knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a man of
    >>>extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some clown who has

    >
    > lied
    >
    >>>in the past about his information sources is more creditable than Colin
    >>>Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.

    >>
    >>Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    >>that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    >>ordered to do so?

    >
    >
    > I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than anything I
    > can say.


    *stunned silence*
    Literally, words fail me.
     
  17. Kyle Legate

    Kyle Legate Guest

    Stewart Fleming wrote:
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    >
    >> "Stewart Fleming" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>> Tom Kunich wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> And although General Powell makes absolutely nothing out of lying
    >>>> about his
    >>>> knowledge of the plans concerning Iraq, and the fact that he is a
    >>>> man of extremely high morals and ethics, you believe that some
    >>>> clown who has

    >>
    >> lied
    >>
    >>>> in the past about his information sources is more creditable than
    >>>> Colin Powell speaking on TV all day yesterday.
    >>>
    >>> Tom, what is there in someone's personal ethics and moral background
    >>> that makes them unwilling or unable to lie for their country when
    >>> ordered to do so?

    >>
    >>
    >> I think that reflects a great deal more on your own ethics than
    >> anything I can say.

    >
    > *stunned silence*
    > Literally, words fail me.
    >

    If you guys would stop replying to his ignorant trolls, my killfile will
    once again be effective.

    Thanks.
     
  18. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Nev Shea wrote:
    > >
    > > PS -- thanks Robert, for posting links to the PIPA report a while back

    >
    > Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
    > that report is scary.
    >
    > http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf


    Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
    it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
    frequency to them.

    "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
    depending on their source of news."

    By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
    To me, depend means causal.

    "Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are
    more likely to have misperceptions."

    Did you personally hear the implicit misstatements on FOX? In my
    opinion, FOX isn't really "fair and balanced," but that said, I
    haven't heard those specific misstatements when I've listened. (Maybe
    I'm one of those who *didn't* pay attention.) So where is the causal
    link?
     
  19. gwhite

    gwhite Guest

    Nev Shea <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<v%[email protected]>...
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
    > 226327.news.uni-berlin.de:
    >
    > > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Generally I've stopped supplying cites because that is generally the
    > >> tactic of people who don't know what they're talking about. There have
    > >> been any number of times, recently I've written something and people
    > >> have demanded citations for things that could be varified in seconds
    > >> using Google or Yahoo! with no help from anyone else.
    > >>
    > >> That sort of thing seems to be going around these days. In the

    > political
    > >> arena alone recently we've seen Richard Clarke write that Condoleesa
    > >> Rice acted as if she had no idea what Al Queda was. The only trouble
    > >> here was that a year before her supposed ignorance of a major

    > terrorist
    > >> group she did a recorded talk on that very subject.

    > >
    > > Cite, please?

    >
    >
    > He probably saw that on FOX news, and of course they know what they are
    > talking about because they don't cite sources either.


    I don't know where Kunich may have read/heard it, but I believe that
    information was released on FOX, and it was explicitly cited. When
    and where was stated, and the tape was played. Of course, I didn't
    check the citation because I didn't have my own tape recorder running
    and just don't care enough. It was on FOX right around her testimony
    time if you want to contact FOX and peruse their tapes and check the
    citation. I would have been listening in the evening if that helps
    you folks do your verification. Good luck.
     
  20. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    gwhite wrote:
    > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote
    >>
    >> Sometimes I think that report is amusing. The rest of the time I think
    >> that report is scary.
    >>
    >> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf

    >
    > Is the "misperception link" to FOX causal or simply correlative? If
    > it is causal then there must be citations, and certainly some
    > frequency to them.
    >
    > "The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varies significantly
    > depending on their source of news."
    >
    > By implication of "depend," then the misstatements were made on FOX.
    > To me, depend means causal.
    >
    > "Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are
    > more likely to have misperceptions."
    >
    > Did you personally hear the implicit misstatements on FOX? In my
    > opinion, FOX isn't really "fair and balanced," but that said, I
    > haven't heard those specific misstatements when I've listened. (Maybe
    > I'm one of those who *didn't* pay attention.) So where is the causal
    > link?


    Sometimes I think the way your brain works is amusing. The rest of the
    time I think it's scary.
     
Loading...
Loading...