Everyone is welcome here (even Chelsea supporters;-) and all are encouraged to comment as they would like. I encourage dissent, argumentation and debate (obviously anyone who writes about Rand Paul couldn't be looking for anything but;-). That said, I also expect high-level substance and respect for others.
When you choose to offer a comment, you are taking on a responsibility to be respectful of others on the thread. It is my job as site owner to encourage substantive, engaging discussions, but also to enforce community standards.
I reserve the right to reject any comment for any reason. If I do so, you have the ability to submit your rejected comment on the rejected comments thread where I will accept it. I try to err of the side of letting comments through, and have found it rarely necessary to reject comments (have a look at the rejected comments thread). I have rejected more comments in the past week than in the past year, hence this post.
The best way to ensure that your comment goes through is to avoid personal insults and profanity, and to make a substantive argument, backed by logic and data. There are plenty of blogs where bad behavior is allowed and encouraged. This is not one of them.
You are welcome to ask me questions, on the blog and by email, and as opportunity allows, I will do my best to answer them. Please do not expect instantaneous responses. Do not interpret a lack of response as a message of any kind, other than I wish that there were more hours in a day, and days in a week.
Every one of us shares responsibility for ensuring that this blog remains a place where open debate among people who disagree can take place in a respectful manner. It is OK to agree to disagree. In fact, reaching a point where people with different views understand the reasons for their disagreement is a successful outcome. We need not all agree on everything, in fact, that is not even possible.
Thanks to all readers and commenters for helping to uphold these community standards!
12 comments:
What about Newcastle supporters ?
-2-eric144
They will be welcome back tomorrow;-) Liverpool supporters extra welcome today.
Classical hero worship. And yet there weren't very many people who supported his father Ron (who had much the same message) for presidency....An effusive minority or the start of something big?
Roger,
I would respectfully ask if you have yet kept your promise (the promise you made on July 31, 2009).
Please remember that you explicitly promised to:
“address it directly in an upcoming post”
Ergo, allegedly addressing the question in a book does not fulfill your promise.
Respectfully Submitted by,
SBVOR
-4-SBVOR
Welcome back ... if you'd like I'll put up a post that is titled "My View on Climate Science" with a link to the freely available chapter 1 from my book. That'll have to do.
Rather than split hairs, what do you take issue with in that chapter?
Roger sez (Sun Nov 07, 05:28:00 PM MST):
"Rather than split hairs, what do you take issue with in that chapter?"
Roger,
If you ever stop obfuscating and simply honor your promise, I will be happy to inform you what I "take issue" with.
Until then…
SBVOR
Here is the deal. You have asked for my views on climate science. They are clearly explained in the freely available chapter 1 of my new book.
If you'd like to ask me questions about what I have written on that subject I am happy to engage. I am not however interested in playing blog games. Should you continue to insist, you will find your comments rejected here. You can post whatever you want on the rejected comments thread. Thanks.
"I encourage dissent, argumentation and debate (obviously anyone who writes about Rand Paul couldn't be looking for anything but;-). That said, I also expect high-level substance and respect for others."
Yes, but you have shown essentially no respect for Rand Paul. Or do you think that doesn't count, because he's not on the blog?
For instance, you've made the utterly ridiculous analogy that Rand Paul's comment that, "Just as we don't subsidize laptops and iPods, we should not be subsidizing solar and wind power"...is, "...right up there with 'The government should keep its hands off my Medicare.'"
Numerous commenters pointed out that solar and wind power receive massive government subsidies. For example, wind and solar power installations allow a tax credit of up to 30 percent of the cost of the installation:
http://www.ehow.com/list_6156983_government-benefits-wind-solar-power.html
Why don't you point out to your readers the equivalent subsidies for laptops and iPods? Is it because you can't? And if you can't, why not be honest and withdraw your snide remark?
You also called Ron Paul a "hypocrite". You have been asked to provide justification for that statement, but you haven't as yet. If you can't provide justification for why you think he's a "hypocrite," why not also withdraw that remark?
If you call someone a "hypocrite," you are saying they are dishonest. If you call someone a "hypocrite," and can't back it up, you are being dishonest. Do you think dishonest attacks are within "community standards"?
Thank you Roger!
-8-markbahner
I did not call Paul a "hypocrite" as you allege. It is my opinion that it is hypocritical to highlight one set of subsidies but not another. You are free to have a different view. No need to bust a seam over it, thanks!
Roger,
You write, "I did not call Paul a 'hypocrite' as you allege. It is my opinion that it is hypocritical to highlight one set of subsidies but not another. You are free to have a different view."
OK, you didn't call him a hypocrite. You said he made a hypocritical (and stunningly ignorant) statement. I stand corrected.
Again, I'd suggest you look up the meaning of "hypocritical". Either you don't know what it means, or you are saying he is making a dishonest statement.
•professing feelings or virtues one does not have; "hypocritical praise"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocritical
•hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•hypocritically - in a hypocritical manner; "he behaved hypocritically by praying piously when people were watching"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•deceptive, just pretending to be good, as in: It is hypocritical to say tell your children to behave a certain way and then do the exact opposite yourself.
www.business-words.com/dictionary/H.html
If you think Rand Paul is being "deceptive, just pretenting to be good" then you should provide evidence to support your claim. If you can't provide such evidence, you should withdraw your claim.
"No need to bust a seam over it, thanks!"
I'm not "bust(ing) a seam." I'm merely pointing out that you are claiming a man to be making ignorant and dishonest statements. If you are an honest man, you'll either provide evidence to support your claims, or if you can't, you'll withdraw your claims.
I'll even give you some potential statements that an honest man might make:
"I called Rand Paul 'hypocritical' for highlighting subsidies for wind and solar power, but not for Apple iPods and laptops, and implied that he was ridiculously ignorant (i.e., by claiming that his statement was 'right up there with "The government should keep its hands off my Medicare"')."
"I was wrong, because:
1) There are in fact no U.S. government subsidies for Apple iPods and laptops that are comparable to the U.S. government subsidies for wind and solar power, and
2) Even if there were U.S. government subsidies for iPods and laptops that were comparable to the U.S. government subsidies for wind and solar power, Rand Paul might simply have been unaware of them, rather than dishonestly pretending that they didn't exist."
P.S. If you were brutally honest, you might even add, "I realize now that my statement that, 'You can thank DOD for your iPod, iPhone and iPad' was pretty silly."
-11-markbahner
Thanks for the further comment, my final reply on this issue ... when people start citing dictionary definitions, that is a good sign that the debate has gone semantic.
I hear your objections, and having had our respective say, then let's agree to disagree, fair enough?
Post a Comment