william.scherk

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada. It is not a 'new thing' in Canada. Adam's obscure, undated, and unreferenced 'blog link' is meaningless in context: when was it published, what evidence was adduced for any of its statements? More importantly, what is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005? My sources are even more obscure than Adam's, consisting only of vague memories, but I think the idea of incorporating sharia here in Ontario was put forward, thoroughly trounced by public opinion, and rejected. Even more obscure sources are of course helpful. But I meant to underline the appeal to both Adam and Richard to refer to some fact, not opinion. As you point out, Carol, this issue was thoroughly debated and decided in law. I suspect that both Richard and Adam would like to see confirmation of your memories -- yet I still hope each of these worthy gentlemen will do their own research and discover the facts. To summarize, Richard claimed "Canada has introduced limited Sharia," and "The facts are the facts." Adam claimed "In Canada, it is new because up to now arbitration bodies were limited to commercial or business disputes." Can either of these folks provide us with something solid enough to be called 'fact,' and if so, will they themselves update their earlier confident claims? As I asked, What is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

I want to add a thought to this to keep it on record. Part of the imagined "maddeningly contrary and obstinate" people would have to include a glimmer of hope that they could be persuaded or convinced or argued down somehow. I think I'm on to something. Done right, this idea is far more than a mental punching bag. Shayne's idea of a corner or fresh topic with suggested guidelines is not a bad idea, to my mind. In the specialized 'corners' that exist right now, if I understand the format correctly, the lead or named person in the Corner has a certain level of control, at least the ability to delete or modify posts. Is that right? If that is right, maybe you could try an experiment if there is enough interest -- a place where a moderator could take responsibility to oversee a discussion. Alternatively, anyone can start a discussion topic and start the thread with an addendum to the OL guidelines, perhaps laying out what is and isn't considered 'fair play.' I mention these notions, Michael, in the context of some of our recent exchanges on the topic of 'global warming' debates/discussion on OL. I have read over all the previous threads and you are right that discussion degenerated. At the same time, I liked Adam Selene's notion of a framework for a semi-formal debate. We managed to even find four folks who were very interested in such a thing. Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

I am surprised that this is a relatively new thing in Canada. It is not a 'new thing' in Canada. Adam's obscure, undated, and unreferenced 'blog link' is meaningless in context: when was it published, what evidence was adduced for any of its statements? More importantly, what is the present law of the land -- what was the result in law -- of the controversy in 2004/2005?

Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please. Seems like it is only an "almost,"in a 2004 report recommending that Muslim faith-based tribunals be allowed in Ontario, Canada. Seems like Richard can answer for himself, and offer some evidence. Your post, Adam, does not refer to the present situation in Canada -- but refers to two old blog posts: one from 2008 in the Guardian, one from (well, we don't know, do we, since your link is missing) a blog post titled "Canada: Islamic courts in operation - Sharia law blooms in Ontario." Adam, I know you want to shed light, not murk, but your hasty cut-and-paste obscures rather than enlightens. That criticism aside, please read the last paragraph of the Guardian blog post . . . If facts are facts, give us facts, not garble.

Give us facts on Sharia in Canada, please.

I hope Lindsay Perigo has an empathetic response to the death toll and destruction in yesterday's Christchurch temblor. Hope you and yours are safe and sound, Richard.

Not me. I use Agent Ransack. Ack, any reason you didn't tell Phil earlier in the thread? Yeah. Two reasons: Phil was belligerent and sarcastic, and I was being naughty. I did give a description of what Agent Ransack could do upthread, and a screenshot of it in action. Anyway, he now uses Agent Ransack too, so all is good.

My link I wonder if Tony or Richard or both would comment on the formation of Egypt's first Islamist political party -- that's the Hizb al-Wasat al-Jadid (also known as Al-Wasat). Richard has self-identified as an Anti-Jihadist; in a perfect world, Richard could give a Jihadi-eye-view of Al-Wasat, analyze the party history, compare it to other Islamic forces in Egypt, contrast it to 'secular' forces, and offer specific things to watch out for, specific names and statements to be chary of, specific benchmarks to measure Al-Wasat against, and so on. I would like to see Richard give both a pessimistic reading/warning/watching brief on Al-Wasat -- and a reading/warming/watching brief that is less pessimistic. If he would like to compare and contrast this grouping with some of the forces that may be much more 'suspect,' we could get a grip on the specifics of his worries. If he just wants to repeat generalities, that is fine too.

Not me. I use Agent Ransack.

Things are moving fast. A prediction on BBC this moment suggests that armed forces and police (elements of) have joined the rebels. Correspondents in Tripoli report control tipping to the rebels. Unconfirmed . . . but the monster regime will be coming to an end within days if not hours. See also the rather less breathless live updates at Al Jazeera online and at the Guardian online. Overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations in Morocco.

Screenshot of my file search software.

You jest. We would have to have separate Dogpile On Soandso topics. It would no be fair to Phil to have a thread like that devoted only to him. Everybody gets snitty and superior sometimes, me notably, so I would feel an awful hypocrite if there were a Mexican Wrestling style topic on him but not on me. So, in the meantime, I will update what should be <a href="http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10167&st=0&p=125703NB">my one and only takedown of Phil forever and ever amen</a>. When that last NB is affixed, I will delete it and try once more to be the reasonable fellow I pretend to want everyone else to be.

Phil, I use a free file search utility that offers: - Perl compatible regular expressions that allow complex rule based searches. - Web style Boolean searches for ease of use. - Immediate contents results view. - ONE PAGE RESULTS (no scrolling) - Returns page/line numbers in results, with HIGHLIGHTED search terms in context for each result -- -- click to open found files - Searches within Word, text, html, PDF files - Sorts on file size, name, location, type As my previously garbled posts suggested, I will put up a screenshot.

Garble.

Live updates here (until 6 pm today).

I'll suspend my tiresome work on the 'greatest Phil takedown ever,' and become my sometime sunny, helpful self. Phil, I use a free file search utility that offers: - Perl compatible regular expressions that allow complex rule based searches. - Web style Boolean searches for ease of use. - Immediate contents results view. - Various wizards to walk the user through the searching process. - Searches within Word, text, html, PDF files </ol> I can enter something like "scherk crazypants NOT kookiepants AND fuck" and I get a two pane, scrollable result set (I can also use regular expressions, restrict to a subset of folders, specify a filename or filename fragment and restrict by date). Good grief, Billy Sherk! Don't you know the crazypants go in the top left drawer and the kookiepants go in the top right and those other - activities - are for outside the house when you are grown up? I have updated my entry and am now using "I can give you the link and call a truce Kimosabe"

_________________ <a name="NB">**</a> NB 6: let us look at the generalizations. May be true, but lacking names for 'people who are not Objectivists' and 'people who are fully convinced Objectivists' we are left with a dichotomy. On the one side, 'people who are not Objectivists, and on the other, some departed fully convinced Objectivists. How do we figure out the specifics of this claim? We need the names and examples where the 'people' have 'tended to crowd out' the 'fully convinced Objectivists.

More hideous news from Libya, with the latest from the BBC. Libya protests: Reports of intense Benghazi violence

This statement affirms the consequent of the following question. That is fallacious. We do not all of us use opinion polls only to buttress our argmentation. Sometimes 'we' use/explore or analyze opinion polls to test our argumentation, or to test assumptions about public opinion. I note that your formulation also omits the usual modifier: opinion poll. A poll, in an of itself, can be many things. We 'go to the polls' at an election. "The only poll that matters is the one taken on Polling Day." "I am going to poll the neighbourhood." Your question is already answered -- as far as you are concerned, you only use polls to buttress your argumentation, and presumably, if someone uses an opinion poll to challenge your own estimation of public opinion, you would dismiss the opinion poll as useless, biased, blahbitty blah. Some of your following thoughts (if they are your own thoughts -- sometimes it is difficult to separate your cut-and-paste jobs from your own opinions) are interesting, if incomplete and biased. You haven't tried to tell us what the difference is between a bad opinion poll and a good opinion poll, and you haven't given any indication that there could possibly be any use of an opinion poll beyond buttressing argumentation. Why would anyone attempt to answer such a loaded question as you pose? Please give an example of (and link to) a poll that you have evaluated. Include the methodology, who commissioned it, the question, and the various uses you think that particular opinion poll can be put to, good and bad. -- the French word for opinion poll is sondage. This means, roughly, sounding -- a cognate to dropping a weight over the side of a boat to measure depth. Why would anyone wish to make a sounding?

The Christian Science Monitor probes changing US attitudes toward unions, using Pew data.

Subject: Anti-Effort, Lack of Pride among the Camp-Followers Subject: Thoughtless, "Chat List" Responses Subject: Dodging, Whining, Pissing, and Moaning Major Subject: Phil Coates & Sloppy, Unfocused, Generalizing | Hypocrisy | Evasion | Selective | Memory | Unnamed Targets | Poisoning the Well | Hectoring | Refusal to Cite Specifics | Inability to Learn from Own Errors | Self-Regarding Pose of Moral and Intellectual Superiority Minor Subjects: Shoddy documentation | Missing Citations, Lack of Illustrative Examples, Refusal to Provide References or Specific Warrants for Sweeping Denunciations | 'Blind Spots' | Refusal to Acknowledge Blind Spots | Self-Exemption from Own Standards | Psychological Projection | Defensiveness | Refusal to Grant Points to 'Enemies' | Lack of Critical Self-Appraisal Tone of this essay: Relentlessly mocking Style of this essay: Rigourous, well-referenced References used: specific examples, hyperlinked to original sources Target audience: General Objectivist Living readership Aim of this essay: To meticulously document Phil Coate's repulsive generalizing in the cited post Expected result/Impact on Phil Coates: Nil Implicit prediction of this essay's reception/response by subject of mockery: haughty evasion of all points made or silence or more of the same fucking bullshit he is known for across the Online Objectivish Universe Pippi, over time OL has become more and more a home for people who are not Objectivists and they have tended to crowd out the fully convinced Objectivists. So it's become more of a board where you will see threads with titles like 'reconsidering' or 'a flaw' in Oism. While these questions are usually quite silly or uninformed, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with a site whose purpose is/or which tends to draw those whose purpose is to debate and discuss Objectivism. Like here: among Oists, quasi-Oists, crypto-Oists, not yet-Oists, disillusioned drunken-Oists, what the hell is Oism-ists, etc. And also there are bright people here who don't happen to be Oists and have interesting things to say. I learned a lot from a thread on literature from well-read people, for example. People who were active there didn't have to support Objectivism or agree with it 100% like I do for them to have caused me to think about what they had to say. In general also, topics which have nothing to do with Oism can draw interesting insights. All of the unmoderated sites tend to draw their share of self-indulgent 'barroom drunken screamers'. Each of these sites tends over time to become Frequent Crap Attractors (that's a technical term from Objectivist epistemology.) The more orthodox sites, for example, tend to draw their share of those who mindlessly repeat Oist bromides without having understood them. Every once in a while, you just get so fed up that like GHS and myself you have to take a vacation. [to be continued, after I finish laughing at Phil Coate's implacable posturing]

Huh? There is no contest, since you will win. After your Jeopardy triumph, all I am asking is for a reasonable pause before you announce your further triumph here. As for 'banning,' I am asking for self-moderation, not banning, and you only have to hold yourself back for a few posts longer. You are only banned at SOLO and Noodlefood, as far as I know. In the meantime, you can use your winning answers in this new contest to draft the optimum distribution plan for AS1, and get that over to the production team quickly to avert their disastrous rollout in major metropolitan markets. Oh, and if you have 'the actual list,' how much money do you want to tell the list what the list actually is?

Fareed Zakaria's CNN programme GPS will feature George Soros, at 10 am and 1 pm (Pacific & Eastern). Here's a blurb and a brief video excerpt of Soros. <object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2011/02/18/gps.soros.beck.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2011/02/18/gps.soros.beck.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>

Al-Qaradawi has returned to lead prayers in Egypt's Revolution Square, speaking to a crowd estimated at 250,000 (FoxNews) or more than a million (New York Times). FoxNews report gave only two sentences to Qaradawi. The New York Times reported more extensive remarks. I am making a direct comparison between the politically correct** Fox and the leftist NYT. Why does Fox make no mention of the details of the sermon, and why does Fox News make no mention of the Iranian warships in the Suez? FoxNews: Cairo Parties as the Economy Struggles New York Times: After Long Exile, Sunni Cleric Takes Role in Egypt _____________________________ ** I have always hated the term 'politically correct' since the first time I read it in about 1994 or so. I hate the way that it is used as a weasel word, and has long since lost its original (bad/good/neutral/ironic) connotation of Party Line adherence to become attached to 'the left' and ridiculous speech-codes and stifling conventions on discourse. I use it here as a slightly jarring poke at the notion that some reporting is generally suspect because it comes from a political pole -- as if the only shoddy and/or biased reports come from a certain pole, as if only one pole's productions need critical evaluation, as if a 'pole' determines the global credibility of any given report. Is there a Party Line at OL that only 'trusted sources' are credible? No, of course not. But there has been a few comments lately in this thread that sneer at reports from supposed leftist/suspect sources -- without detailing which specific information is wrong or suspect or badly reported or otherwise in doubt. I hate that kind of murkily -premised applied heuristic. It doesn't do any useful work in discerning truth or accuracy . . . So, is FoxNews to be trusted simply because it is correct in its general politics? Nope. Is the New York Times to be mistrusted simply because it is incorrect in its general politics? Nope again, by my lights. Do shadowy forces implicitly impose an ideological slant on news? Not necessarily. Can a slant be demonstrated by handwaving, or sarcasm, or implicit taint? No. No and no. That said, it could be fun to insert 'politically correct' before each news story that I cite from a supposed 'right wing' media source each time a supposedly 'left wing' story is rather vaguely implied to be suspect!

The notable tidbit was "One of Baumbach's duties was to deliver deportation notices to Hungary's Jews, confiscating their property and turning it over to Germany. Young George Soros sometimes accompanied the official on his rounds." The tidbit was originally referenced to Horowitz, of whom it is said that he "usually sources his facts quite thoroughly." The source of the 'fact' was traced to an article in the New Yorker, cited by Michael immediately above. Is this a true fact? Michael, did you find support for the Horowitz/Poe tidbit in the Bruck profile? You say that your conclusion "is very similar to Beck's." Here is Beck: "George Soros's father asked a Christian in Hungary to adopt his son, make him his godson. And George Soros used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off. And George Soros was part of it. He would help confiscate the stuff. It's frightening. Here's a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps."