EPO and Hobby Cyclists



"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.
 
"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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
"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
 
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."
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
"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
 
"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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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?
 
Nev Shea <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<v%[email protected]>...
> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in news:c64tj2$81l81$1@ID-
> 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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Re: EPO and Hobby Cyclists
Replies
0
Views
612
Road Cycling
Gunny Bunny
G
R
Study shows problems with EPO test
Replies
23
Views
3K
Road Cycling
[email protected]
W
M
Re: Generate your own EPO with Echinacea Supplements?
Replies
1
Views
526
Road Cycling
Tom Kunich
T
D
Re: Generate your own EPO with Echinacea Supplements?
Replies
0
Views
282
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
M
EPO Tour of California
Replies
5
Views
388
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M
Top Bottom Back